r    *. 


yt: 
.*£?.:/    Sfc 


f^-5% 


THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF'ILLINOIS 

p 

LIBRARY 

630.7 

'*      V  - 

n  Gi> 

*V\/o .    I  (y  (o  ~~  '    O  I 

•' 


• 


.. 

•' 


•- 


• 


UBF'ARV 

OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


NQN  CIRCULATING 


t  OF  il 
1914  A. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


A  REVIEW   OF  AMERICAN    INVESTIGATIONS 
ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 

WITH    SPECIAL    REFERENCE    TO 

THE  PROTEIN  AND  ENERGY  REQUIREMENTS 
UBPARY 

BY  SLEETER  BULL  AND  A.  D.  EMMETT 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS,  JANUARY,  1914 


(9  t-    1*1 

SUMMARY  OP  BULLETIN  No.  166.          DIVERSITY  OF  fLLHWfc' 

IGRJCULTURE  LIBRARY 

1.  OBJKCT.  —  In   connection   with   investigations   carried   on  by   the   Animal 
Husbandry  Department  of  this  station  upon  the  protein  requirements  of  farm 
animals,  it  was  necessary  to  review  the  literature  with  reference  to  fattening  lambs. 
In  addition,  it  was  deemed  of  importance  to  the  problem  to  include  the  energy 
requirements.  Page  3 

2.  NATURE  OF  THE  EEVIEW.  —  The  experiments  studied  were  limited  to  those 
that  have  been  carried  on  in  the  United  States.     Those  in  which  the  feeds  were 
carefully  weighed  and  analyzed  chemically  have  been  regarded  as  the  most  im- 
portant.   In  nearly  every  case  it  was  necessary  to  calculate  the  digestible  protein, 
using  coefficients  of  digestibility  from  the  most  recent  and  reliable  sources.     The 
net  energy  values  of  the  rations  also  were  calculated.  Pages  3  to  5 

3.  SCOPE  OP  THE  EEVIEW.  —  The  review  included  the  following  investigations, 
the  objects  of  which  were  to  compare  rations  without  special   reference  to   any 
particular  nutrients: 

Cornell                 Station,  3  experiments  with  303  lambs.  Pages  5  to     7 

Michigan  "  4  "  "  430  "  "  7  to  10 

Wyoming  "  7        .    "  "  940  "  "  10  to  14 

Iowa  "'  6  "  "  334  "  "  14  to  17 

Nebraska  "  2  "  "  178  "  "  17  to  18 

Colorado  "  2  "  "  911  "  "  18  to  20 

South  Dakota  "  3  "  "  125  "  "  20  to  21 

Oklahoma  "  1  "  "  40  "  "  22 

Wisconsin  "  3  "  "  58  "  "  22  to  23 

New  Hampshire     "  1  "  "  20  "  "  23  to  24 

Ohio  "  4  "  "  490  "  "  24  to  26 
Connecticut 

(Storrs)  "  1  "  "  220  "  "  26 

Minnesota  "  l'         "  "  10  "  "  26 

Montana  "  2  "  "  230  "  "  27 

Utah  "4  "  "  300  "  "  27  to  29 

Illinois  "  6  "  "  538  "  "  29  to  32 

4.  COMPILATION  AND  DISCUSSION  OP  KESULTS.  —  The  results  have  been  com- 
piled and  discussed  in  an  effort  to  ascertain  the  minimum  amount  of  protein  and 
energy   conducive   to   good   fattening   gains.     They  have  been   divided   into   four 
classes  according  to  the  average  live  weights  of  the  lambs  during  the  experiments: 
Class  I,  lambs  weighing  50   to   70  pounds;    Class   II,  lambs  weighing  70   to  90 
pounds;  Class  III,  lambs  weighing  90  to  110  pounds;  and  Class  IV,  lambs  weigh- 
ing 110  to   150  pounds.     The  results  have  been   subdivided  further  into   groups 
according  to  the  amounts  of  digestible  protein  consumed.     The  number  of  animals 
in  each  lot,  the  average  live  weights  of  the  lambs  during  the  experiment,  the  net 
energy  consumed  per  day,  and  the  average  daily  gains  have  been  given  for  each 
group.  Pages  32  to  34 


330894 


5.  CONCLUSIONS. — From  the  results  obtained  in  this  review,  which  embrace 
265  lots  containing  in  all  5127  lambs,  the  following  average  values  for  protein 
and  energy  are  suggested  as  being,  in  general,  the  most  economical  for  fattening 
lambs:  Page  35 

a.  Lambs  weighing  50  to  70  pounds,  3.1  to  3.3  pounds  of  digestible  protein 
and  17  to  19  therms  of  net  energy. 

b.  Lambs  weighing  70  to  90  pounds,  2.5  to  2.8  pounds  of  digestible  protein 
and  18  to  20  therms  of  net  energy.     In  certain  instances  1.8  to  2.0  pounds  of 
digestible  protein  and   18  to  20  therms  of  net  energy  are  sufficient. 

c.  Lambs  weighing  90  to  110  pounds,  2.2  to  2.4  pounds  of  digestible  protein 
and  17  to  20  therms  of  net  energy. 

d.  Lambs  weighing  110  to  150  pounds,  2.6  to  3.0  pounds  of  digestible  protein 
and  16  to  19  therms  of  net  energy.     It  seems  probable,  however,  that  1.4  to  1.9 
pounds  of  protein  would  be  sufficient  for  lambs  of  this  weight. 

6.  DETAILED  DATA. — 

Class  I,  lambs  weighing  50  to  70  pou:  ds.  Pages  36  to  37 

Class  II,  lambs  weighing  70  to  90  pounds.  Pages  38  to  40 

Class  III,  lambs  weighing  90  to  110  pounds.  Pages  41  to  42 

Class  IV,  lambs  weighing  110  to  150  pounds.  Page  43 

7.  CURVES. — Figures  1  to  4  inclusive.  Pages  44-47 

8.  BIBLIOGRAPHY.  Pages  48-49 


A  REVIEW   OF  AMERICAN    INVESTIGATIONS 
ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 

WITH    SPECIAL    REFERENCE    TO 

THE  PROTEIN  AND  ENERGY  REQUIREMENTS 


BY  SLEETEE  BULL,  ASSOCIATE  IN  ANIMAL  NUTRITION,  AND 
A.  D.  EMMETT,  ASSISTANT  CHIEF  IN  ANIMAL  NUTRITION 


INTRODUCTION 

In  connection  with  investigations  carried  on  by  the  Animal 
Husbandry  Department  of  this  station  upon  the  protein  requirements 
of  farm  animals,  it  was  necessary  to  make  a  comprehensive  review  of 
the  literature  upon  the  protein  requirements  of  fattening  lambs. 
While  this  study  was  being  made,  it  became  evident  that  the  addition 
of  the  data  dealing  with  the  net  energy  requirements  would  aid 
decidedly  in  interpreting  the  results. 

Inasmuch  as  Armsby*  has  quite  thoroly  reviewed  the  German 
investigations  upon  the  protein  requirements  of  sheep,  it  was  thought 
best  to  confine  this  study  to  the  American  experiments.  Table  1 
presents  a  compilation  of  data  obtained  by  Armsby  from  the  results 
of  experiments  by  Wolff  and  Weiske  to  determine  the  protein 
requirements  of  growing  sheep.  The  gains  represent  a  normal  rate 
of  growth. 

TABLE  1. —  PROTEIN  REQUIREMENTS  OP  GROWING  SHEEP  :   PROM  DATA  COMPILED  BY 

ARMSBY-1 


Age 

Digestible  protein 
per  1000  permit 

Experimenter 

mos. 

Us. 

4-5 

3.76 

Weiske 

5-6 

3.26 

Weiske 

5-6 

3.16 

Wolff 

6-7 

2.78 

Weiske 

6-8 

2.96 

Wolff 

7-9 

2.76 

Weiske 

8-9 

1.87 

Wolff 

9-10 

2.38 

Weiske 

10-11 

2.30 

Weiske 

9-12 

1.38 

Wolff 

11-12 

2.16 

Weiske 

12-14 

1.96 

Weiske 

12-14 

1.61 

Wolff 

14-15 

1.92 

Weiske 

24 

1.22 

Weiske 

•Manual  of  Cattle  Feeding,  5th  ed.    (1902),  pp.  448-458;   U.  8.  Dept.  Agr., 
Bur.  An.  Ind.,  Bui.  108,  p.  72 ;    Bui.  143,  p.  94. 

3 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


From  the  results  of  a  number  of  German  feeding  experiments, 
Armsby"  calculated  the  standard  for  growing  sheep  shown  in  Table  2. 


TABLE  2.- 


PROTEIN  AND  ENERGY  EEQUIREMENTS  OF  GROWING  SHEEP  :    FROM  DATA 
COMPILED  BY  ARM  SB  Y 


Age 

Weight 

Digestible  protein 
per  1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
per  1000  pounds 

mos. 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 

Us. 
70 
90 
110 
130 
145 

Ibs. 
4.4 
2.8 
2.1 
1.8 
1.5 

therms 
18.6 
15.6 
12.7 
11.5 
11.0 

Kellner"  has  presented  a  feeding  standard  for  fattening  sheep 
based  upon  the  results  obtained  by  the  German  experiment  stations. 
His  standard  is  given  in  Table  3. 

TABLE   3. —  PROTEIN   AND   ENERGY  EEQUIREMENTS   OF  FATTENING  SHEEP:    FROM 
DATA  COMPILED  BY  KELLNER 


Age 

Weight 

Digestible  protein 
per  1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
per  1000  pounds 

TttOS. 

5-6 
6-8 
8-11 
11-15 
15-20 

Ibs. 
66 
84 
101 
119 
154 

Ibs. 
4.5 
3.5 
2.5 
2.0 
1.5 

therms 
18.4 
16.5 
14.7 
12.2 
10.9 

In  making  a  study  of  the  data  given  in  the  following  pages,  an 
effort  has  been  made  to  embrace  all  the  experiments  that  seemed  of 
value.  Since  but  few  experiments  have  been  carried  on  in  this  country 
with  the  protein  requirement  primarily  in  mind,  it  has  been  necessary 
to  recalculate  the  results  of  many  experiments  that  had  for  their 
object  simply  the  comparison  of  rations  without  special  reference 
to  any  particular  nutrient0. 

More  importance  should  be  attached  to  those  experiments  in 
which  the  feeds  were  analyzed  than  to  those  in  which  they  were  not. 
Where  the  feeds  were  not  analyzed,  their  composition  has  been  taken 
from  Henry 's  ' '  Feeds  and  Feeding, ' '  unless  some  other  source  seemed 
more  representative.  Owing  to  the  varying  chemical  composition  of 
feeding  stuffs,  these  calculated  results  must  necessarily  have  a  ques- 
tionable value. 


"U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Farmers'  Bui.  346,  p.  18. 

bDie  Ernahrung  der  landwirtschaftlichen  Nutztiere,  Dritte  Auflage  (1906), 
p.  593. 

cln  the  discussion  of  there  experiments  in  which  the  investigators  calculated 
the  digestible  nutrients,  mention  is  made  of  the  fact. 


1914] 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


The  coefficients  of  digestibility  also  have  been  taken  from  Henry 's 
' '  Feeds  and  Feeding, ' '  unless  some  other  source  seemed  better  adapted 
to  the  particular  experiment  under  consideration,  in  which  case  the 
reference  is  given.  Only  a  few  experiments  have  been  reviewed  in 
which  the  rations  were  not  carefully  weighed,  as  they  obviously  would 
be  of  little  value. 

The  custom  of  speaking  of  digestible  carbohydrates  and  digestible 
fats  has  been  discarded,  and  the  "net  energy"  values,  as  introduced 
by  Armsby,  have  been  substituted.  When  the  digestible  nutrients  of 
a  feed  are  considered,  only  the  losses  in  the  feces  are  deducted.  In  con- 
sidering the  net  energy,  one  takes  into  account  only  that  part  which  is 
available  for  maintenance,  growth,  fattening,  wool  production,  etc.; 
the  losses  in  the  feces,  intestinal  gas,  urine,  labor  of  mastication,  diges- 
tion, and  assimilation  being  deducted.  In  calculating  the  energy  of 
the  rations,  the  net  energy  values  of  the  feeds  as  compiled  by  Armsby 
and  Kellner  have  been  used. 

The  digestible  protein  and  the  net  energy  per  1000  pounds  live 
weight  have  been  calculated  from  the  total  amounts  of  digestible  pro- 
tein and  net  energy  consumed,  taking  the  average  of  the  initial  and 
the  final  live  weights  as  the  average  weight  of  the  lambs  during  the 
experiment.  Thruout  the  study,  0.3  pound  has  been  assumed  to  be  a 
good  daily  gain  for  lambs. 

AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS 

In  1888,  Eoberts  and  Wing,1  at  Cornell,  carried  on  one  of  the  first 
experiments  in  this  country  relating  to  the  influence  of  the  amount  of 
protein  consumed  upon  the  nutrition  of  lambs.  They  fed  2  lots  of  3 

TABLE  4. — •  EXPERIMENT  BY  EGBERTS  AND  WING  AT  THE  CORNELL  STATION' 


Lot 

Ration 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Average 
daily 
gain 

I 

Bran,  oil  meal, 
c  o  1  1  o  nseed 
meal,  man- 
gels, mixed 
hay  

Us. 
46 

Its. 
76 

Ibs. 
4.9 

1:3.3 

therms 
18.1 

Ibs. 
0.18 

II 

Corn  meal,  man- 
gels, mixed 
hay  

46 

63 

2.2 

1:8.4 

17.8 

0.10 

lambs  each,  from  November  11  to  April  25,  166  days.  The  lambs  at 
the  beginning  of  the  experiment  were  about  six  months  old.  The  feeds 
were  analyzed  and  the  digestible  nutrients  calculated.  The  data  are 
summarized  in  Table  4. 


'This  and  other  reference  numbers  refer  to  the  bibliography  on  page  48. 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


In  both  lots  the  gains  were  quite  low.  Lot  II,  receiving  the 
smaller  amount  of  protein,  made  the  lower  gain.  Altho  it  is  not  so 
stated  in  the  report  of  the  experiment,  lambs  weighing  only  46  pounds 
at  six  months  of  age  would  hardly  be  considered  representative  ani- 
mals; the  fact  that  they  were  undersized  would  influence  the  gains 
more  or  less  and  detract  from  the  value  of  the  experiment 

Roberts  and  Wing,2  in  a  continuation  of  the  preceding  experiment, 
fed  4  lots  of  2  lambs  each,  from  November  25  to  April  25,  150  days. 
Whether  the  digestible  nutrients  were  calculated  from  direct  analyses 
of  the  feeds  or  from  averages,  is  not  stated.  The  data  are  summarized 
in  Table  5. 

TABLE  5. — EXPERIMENT  BY  EGBERTS  AND  WING  AT  THE  CORNELL  STATION* 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Average 
daily 
gain 

I 
II 

Corn,       turnips, 
mangels,  timo- 
thy hay  
Bran,    cotton- 
seed    meal, 
turnips,   man- 
gels,      clover 
hay    . 

Ibs. 
47 

48 

Ibs. 

72 

87 

Ibs. 
1.6 

3.8 

1:10.9 
1:   4.2 

therms 
16.7 

15.9 

Ibs. 
0.16 

0.26 

III 

Corn,  bran,  cot- 
tonseed meal, 
turnips,  man- 
gels,   timothy 
hav    . 

51 

89 

2.6 

1:   6.5 

17.1 

0.25 

rv 

Corn,  bran,  cot- 
tonseed  meal, 
timothy   hay  . 

55 

84 

2.5 

1:   6.3 

16.7 

0.19 

A  comparison  of  Lots  I  and  IV  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
slightly  greater  gain  of  Lot  IV  was  due  to  the  considerable  increase 
in  the  amount  of  protein  consumed  by  that  lot,  since  both  lots  received 
equal  amounts  of  energy.  The  similarity  of  the  gains  made  by  Lots 
II  and  III  would  seem  to  indicate  that  there  was  no  special  advantage 
in  increasing  the  protein  above  2.6  pounds.  In  every  lot  the  amount 
of  energy  in  the  ration  was  apparently  too  low  for  maximum  gains, 
as  in  no  case  was  the  average  daily  gain  0.3  pound  per  head. 

Wing8  later  fed  4  lots  of  lambs  from  December  15  to  April  3,  a 
period  of  110  days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  A  summary  of  the 
data  is  given  in  Table  6. 

Only  a  slight  difference  in  gains  is  shown  between  Lot  III,  on  the 
high-protein  plane  with  no  succulent  feed,  and  Lot  II,  on  the  low- 
protein  plane  with  no  succulent  feed.  Likewise,  Lot  I  (low-protein) 


1914]  AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 

TABLE  6. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  WING  AT  THE  CORNELL  STATION* 


Lot 

Eation 

No. 
in 
lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutri- 
tive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 
II 

Mixed  hay,  pea 
and   oat  hay, 
silage,  grain  . 
Mixed  hay,  pea 
and   oat  hay, 
'   grain  . 

58 
58 

Ibs. 
56 
56 

Ibs. 
79 
71 

Ibs. 
2.6 
2.8 

1:8.4 
1-83 

therms 
21.0 

22  0 

Ibs. 
0.21 
0  14 

III 

Mixed  hay,  pea 
and    oat  hay, 
grain  . 

86 

56 

75 

4.1 

1-5  2 

19  9 

0  17 

IV 

Mixed  hay,  pea 
and   oat   hay, 
silage,  grain. 

87 

57 

82 

3.8 

1:5.3 

19.1 

0.23 

and  Lot  IV  (high-protein),  both  of  which  received  succulent  feeds, 
show  but  little  difference  in  gains.  All  gains  were  low  and  seemed  to 
vary  more  with  the  succulent  feeds  than  with  the  protein  or  the 
energy.  Possibly  the  rations  of  Lots  I  and  II  were  deficient  in  protein. 

TABLE  7. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  F.  B.  MUMFORD  AT  THE  MICHIGAN  STATION* 


Lot 

Kation 

No. 

in 
lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Corn,  roots, 

clover  hay.  .  . 

10 

83 

127 

2.2 

1:7.8 

17.7 

0.37 

II 

Oats,    roots, 

clover  hay.  .  . 

10 

83 

121 

2.4 

1:6.4 

16.1 

0.31 

III 

Bran,  roots, 

clover  hay.  .  . 

10 

82 

106 

2.9 

1:5.1 

13.7 

0.20 

IV 

Corn,  oats,  roots, 

clover  hay.  .  . 

10 

84 

128 

2.4 

1:7.0 

17.2 

0.37 

V 

Corn,bran,  roots, 

clover  hay.  .  . 

10 

86 

122 

2.6 

1:6.5 

16.2 

0.30 

VI 

Oats,  bran,  roots, 

clover  hay.  .  . 

15 

84 

120 

2.6 

1:5.6 

14.8 

0.30 

VII 

Oats,  corn,  bran, 

roots,      clover 

hav    . 

15 

83 

122 

2.6 

1:6.0 

16.3 

0.33 

VIII 

Oats,bran,roots, 

clover  hay.  .  . 

20 

73 

102 

2.4 

1:6.2 

15.5 

0.24 

IX 

Oats,    bran,    si- 

lage,      clover 

hav    . 

20 

74 

103 

2.2 

1:7.6 

15.8 

0.24 

X 

Corn,  oats,  bran, 

roots,     clover 

hay    

5 

84 

110 

3.0 

1:6.8 

14.8 

0.31 

BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


F.  B.  Mumford/  at  the  Michigan  Station,  fed  10  lots  of  Shrop- 
shire lambs  from  November  30  to  March  29,  a  period  of  120  days. 
The  feeds  were  not  analyzed,  but  the  digestible  nutrients  were  cal- 
culated. The  data  are  summarized  in  Table  7. 

Good  gains  were  made  in  nearly  all  instances.  Lots  III,  VIII, 
and  IX  made  the  poorest  gains.  The  energy  was  lower  and  the  protein 
higher  for  Lots  V,  VI,  and  X  than  for  Lots  I,  II,  and  IV,  due  to  the 
partial  substitution  of  bran  for  grain.  It  seems  probable  that  the 
protein  in  this  experiment  was  sufficient  for  good  fattening  gains. 

Smith  and  F.  B.  Mumford,5  in  a  continuation  of  the  experiment 
just  cited,  fed  9  lots  of  Shropshire  lambs  from  November  27  to  March 
12,  106  days.  No  analyses  were  made  of  the  feeds,  but  the  digestible 
nutrients  were  calculated.  In  Table  8  is  given  a  summary  of  the  data 
of  this  experiment. 


TABLE  8. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  SMITH  AND  F. 

STATION* 


B.  MUMFORD  AT  THE  MICHIGAN 


Lot 

Eation 

No. 
in 
lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 
II 

III 

IV 

Corn,  clover  hay 
Corn,      clover 
hay,  roots.  .  .  . 
Corn,  clover  hay, 
roots,  oil  meal 
Corn,  clover  hay, 
oil  meal  

10 
10 
10 
10 

Ibs. 

82 

81 

84 
83 

Ibs. 
115 

121 
123 

118 

Ibs. 
2.0 

2.1 
2.7 
2.8 

1:8.0 
1:8.0 
1:6.0 
1:5.6 

therms 
17.0 

18.4 
18.4 
17.7 

Ibs. 
0.31 

0.38 
0.37 
0.34 

V 

Corn,  clover  hay, 
bran   

15 

80 

106 

2.5 

1:6.0 

15.8 

0.25 

VI 

Corn,  clover  hay, 
wheat    

15 

81 

111 

2.1 

1:7.5 

16.3 

0.28 

VII 
VIII 

Corn,  clover  hay, 
wheat,  oil  meal 
Corn,     clover 
hay*  .  , 

15 

20 

80 
82 

109 
107 

2.7 
2.0 

1:5.5 
1:7.9 

16.4 
16.6 

0.28 
0.24 

IX 

Corn,  clover  hay, 
bran"  

20 

80 

104 

2.6 

1:6.2 

16.3 

0.23 

'Self-feeder  used. 

Again  the  protein  appears  to  have  been  sufficient  for  good  fatten- 
ing gains.  The  lower  gains  of  Lots  VIII  and  IX,  and  also  of  Lots 
V,  VI,  and  VII,  may  have  been  due  to  a  slight  deficiency  in  the  amount 
of  energy  consumed  by  each  of  these  lots.  A  comparison  of  Lots  I  and 
II  with  Lots  III  and  IV  reveals  no  apparent  advantage  in  increasing 
the  protein  over  2.1  pounds. 

In  a  continuation  of  the  above  investigation,  F.  B.  Mumford'  fed 
8  lots  of  10  half-blood  Hampshire  lambs  from  November  25  to  Feb- 
ruary 24,  92  days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  The  data  are  sum- 
marized in  Table  9. 


1914} 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


TABLE  9. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  F.  B.  MUMFORD  AT  THE  MICHIGAN  STATION' 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn,  wheat,  clover  hay  

Ibs. 
85 

Ibs. 

106 

Ibs. 
3  9 

therms 
159 

Ibs. 
022 

II 

Corn,  wheat,  clover  hay  

85 

108 

1  9 

15  8 

0  25 

III 

Corn,  clover  hay  

85 

108 

1  8 

16  5 

0  26 

IV 

Wheat,  clover  hay  

84 

106 

2  1 

16  1 

0  24 

V 

Corn,  wheat,  clover  hay  

84 

100 

2  3 

183 

0  18 

VI 

Sugar  beets,  clover  hay  

84 

95 

1.7 

11.9 

0.13 

VII 

Corn,  wheat,  oats,  bran,  clover 
hay    . 

85 

106 

2.3 

15.5 

0.23 

VIII 

Corn,  wheat,  clover  hay.  . 

80 

105 

2.1 

17.4 

0.26 

The  gains  in  this  experiment  were  only  fair.  In  view  of  the  pre- 
ceding experiments  by  Mumford,  it  would  seem  that  this  may  have 
been  due  in  part  at  least  to  a  deficiency  in  the  energy  supply  and 
possibly  also  in  the  protein. 

H.  W.  Mumford,7  also  at  the  Michigan  Station,  fed  10  lots  of  10 
Shropshire  lambs  from  November  11  to  February  17,  99  days.  The 
feeds  were  not  analyzed,  but  the  digestible  nutrients  were  calculated. 
The  data  are  summarized  in  Table  10. 

TABLE  10. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  H.  W.  MUMFORD  AT  THE  MICHIGAN  STATION* 


Lot 

Ration 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 
II 

Corn,  roots,  clover  hay 
Corn,     roots,     alfalfa 

Ibs. 
75 

74 

Ibft. 
108 

108 

Ibs. 
2.0 

22 

1:  8.4 
1:  79 

therms 
19.0 

193 

Ibs. 
0.33 

035 

III 

IV 

V 

Corn,      roots,      millet 
hay,  clover  hay.  .  .  . 
Corn,  roots,  millet  hay 
Corn,      roots,      clover 
hay,  oat  straw  

75 
73 

73 

108 
99 

105 

1.9 
1.8 

18 

1:  9.3 
1:10.4 

1:  9.9 

19.5 
20.2 

18.7 

0.34 
0.26 

0.32 

VI 
VII 

VIII 

Corn,  roots,  oat  straw 
Corn,      roots,      clover 
hay,  corn  stover.  .  .  . 
Corn,   roots,   corn 
stover   

74 
73 
75 

102 
106 
106 

1.5 
1.8 
1.5 

1:12.6 
1:  9.7 
1:11.4 

18.3 
19.1 
18.7 

0.29 
0.34 
0.31 

IX 
X 

Corn,     roots,     clover 
hay,  bean  straw.  .  .  . 
Corn,  roots,  bean 
straw    

74 

74 

107 
104 

0.33 
0.30 

The  results  show  that  the  protein  was  ample  for  good  fattening 
gains,  even  when  only  1.5  pounds  was  fed,  as  was  done  in  the  cases 
of  Lots  VI  and  VIII.  It  may  be  interesting  to  note  the  difference  be- 


10 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


tween  this  and  the  preceding  experiment  as  to  gains.  The  greater 
gains  made  in  this  experiment  were  probably  due  to  the  considerably 
larger  amounts  of  energy  consumed,  for  the  protein  was  about  the 
same  in  both  experiments. 

Foster,8  at  the  Wyoming  Station,  fed  2  lots  of  50  lambs  each,  from 
December  31  to  April  2,  98  days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  The 
values  for  digestible  protein  in  native  and  in  alfalfa  hay  were  taken 
from  results  obtained  at  that  station."  The  data  are  summarized  in 
Table  11. 

TABLE  11. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  FOSTER  AT  THE  WYOMING  STATION* 


Digesti- 

Net 

Aver- 

Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

ble  pro- 
tein per 
1000 

energy 
per  1000 

age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gain 

Ibs. 

ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Iks. 

I 

Corn,  oil  cake,  native  hay  

48 

72 

1.9 

17.2 

0.25 

II 

Corn,  oil  cake,  alfalfa  hay  

47 

78 

3.9 

18.9 

0.32 

Lot  II,  the  high-protein  lot,  made  the  better  gain.  This  may  have 
been  due  in  part,  however,  to  the  larger  amount  of  energy  consumed 
by  Lot  II,  as  the  difference  in  gains  was  not  proportional  to  the  differ- 
ence in  protein. 

Morton,'  also  at  the  Wyoming  Station,  fed  3  lots  of  20  lambs  each 
and  2  lots  of  3  lambs  each,  from  October  16  to  February  21,  a  period 
of  112  days,  using  Shropshire-Merino  crossbreds.  The  feeds  were 
analyzed,  and  the  digestible  nutrients  calculated,  the  coefficients  of 
digestibility  of  the  protein  of  alfalfa  and  native  hay  being  taken  from 
previous  digestion  experiments  made  at  the  Wyoming  Station."  The 
data  are  summarized  in  Table  12. 


TABLE  12. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  MORTON  AT  THE  WYOMING  STATION* 


Lot 

Bation         . 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn,  turnips,  alfalfa 
hay  . 

Ibs. 
63 

Ibs. 
94 

Ibs. 
3.7 

1:  4.8 

therms 
17.0 

Ibs. 
031 

II 

Barley,  turnips,  al- 
falfa hay  

62 

95 

3.6 

1:  4.8 

16.9 

0.33 

III 

Corn,  turnips,  native 
hay  . 

63 

83 

1.7 

1:10.5 

15.6 

021 

IV 
V 

Corn,     turnips,     flax- 
seed,  alfalfa  hay.  .  . 
Turnips,    flaxseed,    al- 
falfa hay    

65 
65 

94 
91 

3.5 
3.7 

1:  5.1 
1:  4.2 

17.0 

12.6 

0.32 
0.26 

•Wyo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Buls.  69  (1905)  and  78  (1908). 
"Wyo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  69  (1905). 


1914} 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


11 


It  is  evident  that  all  lots  received  enough  protein  for  good  fatten- 
ing gains,  with  the  exception  of  Lot  III.  The  fact  that  Lot  III  made 
only  a  fair  gain  indicates  that  a  larger  amount  of  either  protein  or 
energy,  or  both,  would  have  been  preferable.  There  is  nothing  to  show, 
however,  that  the  other  lots  would  not  have  done  as  well  upon  some- 
what less  protein  than  they  received.  The  comparatively  low  gain 
made  by  Lot  V  was  probably  due  to  a  deficiency  in  the  energy  supply. 

Morton,10  in  a  continuation  of  the  preceding  experiment,  fed  7 
lots  of  5  lambs  each  and  one  lot  of  100  lambs,  for  98  days.  These  also 
were  Shropshire-Merino  crosses.  Analyses  were  made  of  all  the  feeds 
except  the  alfalfa  hay,  the  composition  of  which  was  taken  from  the 
report  of  a  previous  experiment  at  the  Wyoming  Station."  The  di- 
gestible nutrients  were  calculated,  the  coefficients  of  digestibility  of 
the  protein  of  alfalfa  and  native  hay  being  taken  from  the  same  source 
as  in  the  previous  experiment."  The  data  are  given  in  Table  13. 

TABLE  13. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  MORTON  AT  THE  WYOMING  STATION10 


Digesti- 

Net 

Aver- 

Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

ble  pro- 
tein per 
inno 

Nutritive 
ratio 

energy 
per  1000 

age 
daily 

±\)\j\j 
pounds 

pounds 

gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Oats,  native  hay  

64 

79 

1.8 

1:  9.4 

15.1 

0.15 

II 

Corn,  native  hay  

64 

77 

1.5 

1:11.2 

15.7 

0.13 

III 

Corn,  oil  meal,  native 

hay   . 

64 

80 

2.2 

1:  8.3 

17.3 

0.17 

IV 

Oats,  oil  meal,  native 

hay   

64 

81 

2.4 

1:  7.4 

16.1 

0.18 

V 

Barley,   oil   meal,   na- 

tive hay    

64 

80 

2.4 

1:  7.3 

16.8 

0.18 

VI 

Barley,  native  hay.  .  . 

63 

79 

1.8 

1:  9.3 

15.6 

0.16 

VII 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay.  .  .  . 

63 

92 

3.8 

1:  5.4 

20.4 

0.29 

VIII 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

59 

90 

4.5 

1:  5.4 

21.1 

0.31 

Lots  VII  and  VIII,  fed  corn  and  alfalfa  hay,  were  the  only  lots 
that  made  good  gains.  The  poorer  gains  made  by  the  other  lots  were 
probably  due  in  part  to  the  smaller  amounts  of  protein  and  energy 
consumed.  The  source  of  the  nutrients  may  also  have  had  some  in- 
fluence upon  these  gains. 

Morton,"  in  another  experiment,  fed  9  lots  of  lambs  for  98  days. 
All  the  feeds  were  analyzed  with  the  exception  of  the  alfalfa  and  the 
pea  hay.  The  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  protein  of  the  alfalfa, 
the  native,  the  pea,  and  the  sweet-clover  hay  were  taken  from  the  re- 
sults of  digestion  experiments  made  at  the  Wyoming  Station,"  and  of 
the  speltz,  from  results  obtained  at  the  South  Dakota  Station.'  The 
data  are  summarized  in  Table  14. 


•Wyo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  69  (1905). 

bWyo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Buls.  69  (1905)  and  78  (1908). 

cSo.  Dak.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  114  (1909). 


12 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


TABLE  14. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  MORTON  AT  THE  WYOMING  STATION" 


Lot 

Eation 

No. 
in 

lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

40 

Its. 
54 

Ibs. 
88 

Ibs. 
43 

therms 
219 

Ibs. 
0.35 

II 
III 

Oats,  oil  meal,  native  hay 
Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

40 
40 

53 

53 

74 
87 

2.0 
4.3 

17.2 
21.2 

0.21 
0.35 

IV 

Corn,     oil     meal,     sweet- 
clover  hay  

10 

55 

86 

4.5 

22.0 

0.31 

V 

Pea  hay    

10 

53 

70 

4.6 

17.5 

0.17 

VI 

Barley,   oil   meal,   native 
hay  . 

10 

54 

77 

1.8 

18.8 

0.23 

VII 

Barley,    oil   meal,    native 
hay   . 

10 

54 

77 

1.8 

18.4 

0.23 

VIII 

|  ;i: 

Speltz,    oil    meal,    native 
hay  . 

10 

54 

68 

2.0 

19.0 

0.14 

'    IX 

Pea  hay    

40 

77 

83 

2.8 

10.8 

0.06 

In  this  experiment,  of  the  lots  receiving  the  most  protein,  Nos.  1, 
III,  and  IV  made  the  highest  gains ;  these  lots  also  received  the  most 
energy.  The  low  gains  made  by  Lots  V  and  IX  were  probably  due 
to  a  deficiency  in  energy,  while  the  low  gains  of  Lots  II,  VI,  VII,  and 
VIII  may  have  been  due  to  a  deficiency  both  in  protein  and  in  energy, 
or  to  the  source  of  these  nutrients. 

Faville,12  also  at  the  "Wyoming  Station,  fed  3  lots  of  35  lambs  each, 
for  91  days  beginning  November  23.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed. 
In  recalculating  the  results,  the  analyses  of  speltz  and  alfalfa  hay  as 
determined  at  the  Wyoming  Station  the  following  year,  were  used." 
The  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  protein  of  alfalfa  hay  and  of 
speltz  were  taken  from  the  same  sources  as  in  the  preceding  experi- 
ment by  Morton.  A  summary  of  the  data  of  this  experiment  is  given 
in  Table  15. 

TABLE  15. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  FAVILLE  AT  THE  WYOMING  STATION" 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

Ibs. 
59 

Ibs. 

87 

Ibs. 
4.0 

therms 
22.1 

Ibs. 
0.30 

II 

Speltz,  alfalfa  hay  

61 

81 

4.1 

21.8 

0.23 

III 

Barley,  alfalfa  hay  

60 

90 

4.1 

21.4 

0.33 

The  protein  and  the  energy  both  appear  to  have  been  sufficient 
for  good  gains  in  Lots  I  and  III.  In  the  case  of  Lot  II,  their  source 
seems  to  have  been  responsible  for  the  lower  gain. 

•Wyo.  Agr.  Exp.   Sta.,  Bui.  85  (1910). 


1914} 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


13 


Favilie,13  in  the  following  year,  fed  4  lots  of  41  lambs  each,  for 
91  days.  The  feeds  were  all  analyzed.  The  coefficients  of  digestibility 
of  the  protein  of  alfalfa  and  native  hay  were  again  taken  from  the 
same  sources  as  in  the  experiment  by  Morton."  The  data  of  this  ex- 
periment are  given  in  Table  16. 

TABLE  16. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  FAVILLE  AT  THE  WYOMING  STATION'* 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

Ibs. 
64 

ibs. 

96 

Ibs. 
2  9 

therms 
18  2 

Ibs. 
0  35 

II 

Barley,  alfalfa  hay  

64 

90 

32 

18  8 

0  28 

III 

Speltz,  alfalfa  hay  

63 

89 

3.7 

20  7 

0  29 

IV 

Corn,  native  hav.  . 

64 

87 

1.8 

18.0 

0.25 

In  this  experiment  the  gains  did  not  vary  either  with  the  protein 
or  with  the  energy  consumption.  Lot  IV  made  nearly  as  high  a  gain 
as  did  either  Lot  II  or  Lot  III,  each  of  which  received  nearly  twice 
as  much  protein  and  slightly  more  energy  than  did  Lot  IV.  This 
experiment,  like  the  preceding  one,  seems  to  indicate  that  the  source 
of  the  protein  or  the  energy,  or  both,  had  some  influence  upon  the 
gains.  The  fact  that  the  gains  in  this  experiment  were  as  high  as  those 
in  the  experiment  preceding,  suggests  that  the  protein  in  the  latter 
experiment  may  have  been  unnecessarily  high. 

Faville,14  in  another  experiment,  fed  5  lots  of  32  lambs  each,  for 
a  period  of  98  days.  The  feeds  were  all  analyzed.  In  calculating  the 
digestible  protein,  the  coefficient  of  digestibility  of  native  hay  was 
taken  from  determinations  made  at  the  Wyoming  Station."  A  sum- 
mary of  the  data  of  this  experiment  is  given  in  Table  17. 

TABLE  17. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  FAVILLE  AT  THE  WYOMING  STATION" 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn    native  hay       

Ibs. 

77 

Ibs. 

102 

Ibs. 
1.4 

therms 
156 

Ibi. 
0  25 

II 

Barley,  native  hay  

77 

94 

1.5 

15.5 

0  17 

III 

Barley   native  hay  

76 

95 

1.5 

15  6 

0  19 

IV 

Corn,  oil  meal,  native  hay  

76 

102 

2.1 

16.0 

0.27 

V 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay,  native  hay.  . 

77 

99 

1.6 

14.0 

0.23 

The  amounts  both  of  protein  and  of  energy  were  lower  than  those 
in  the  two  preceding  experiments,  and  they  were  apparently  too  low 

»Wyo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Buls.  69  (1905)  and  78  (1908). 


14 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


to  give  good  gains.  Since  the  energy  supply  was  no  greater  than  that 
required  by  growing  lambs,  as  determined  by  Armsby,"  it  is  improb- 
able that  the  small  amount  of  protein  was  the  only  factor  producing 
the  low  gains ;  a  comparison  of  Lot  I  with  Lots  II  and  III  would  seem 
to  show  that  the  source  of  the  protein  was  also  a  factor. 

Wilson  and  Curtiss,15  at  the  Iowa  Station,  fed  11  lots  of  lambs  of 
different  breeds.  There  were  10  lambs  in  each  lot,  with  the  exception 
of  Lot  VI,  in  which  there  were  but  9.  The  lambs  were  all  pure-bred, 
with  the  exception  of  those  of  Lots  X  and  XI,  which  were  crossbred 
and  range  lambs.  The  experiment  ran  from  January  1  to  March  31,  90 
days.  Each  lot  was  fed  the  same  ration,  consisting  of  shelled  corn,  oats, 
bran,  oil  meal,  roots,  and  clover,  pea,  and  timothy  hay.  Timothy  hay 
was  fed  only  during  the  first  month,  and  in  but  a  small  amount  then ; 
pea  hay  was  fed  during  the  first  two  months ;  and  the  other  feeds  were 
fed  during  the  entire  experiment.  None  of  the  feeds  was  analyzed. 
A  summary  of  the  data  of  this  experiment  is  given  in  Table  18. 

TABLE  18. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  WILSON  AND  CURTISS  AT  THE  IOWA  STATION" 


Lot 

Breed 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net    • 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Southdown    

Ibs. 
91 

Ibs. 
132 

Ibs. 
3  1 

therms 
19.3 

IllS. 

045 

n 

Shropshire       

101 

144 

2  9 

185 

048 

in 

Oxford    

119 

166 

29 

18  5 

0  52 

IV 

Suffolk    

117 

166 

3  0 

19.0 

0.55 

v 

Lincoln   

121 

171 

29 

18.1 

0.55 

VI 

Leicester    

132 

179 

26 

16.4 

0.52 

VII 

Cotswold    

118 

174 

29 

18.1 

0.62 

VIII 

Dorset  

101 

145 

3.2 

20.1 

0.48 

IX 

Merino     

82 

108 

3  0 

19.1 

0.29 

x 

Crossbred     

81 

118 

3.1 

19.5 

0.41 

XI 

Eange   

71 

104 

3.0 

18.8 

0.37 

The  gains  certainly  indicate  that  the  protein  and  the  energy  were 
sufficient  for  very  good  results.  It  must  be  remembered,  however, 
in  comparing  this  experiment  with  others  of  a  similar  character,  that 
the  pure-bred  lambs  used  in  this  experiment  and  in  the  one  following, 
were  selected  with  the  idea  of  obtaining  the  best  representatives  of 
each  breed ;  hence  better  gains  than  the  average  would  be  expected. 

Curtiss  and  Wilson,18  in  a  continuation  of  the  preceding  experi- 
ment, fed  9  lots  of  pure-bred  lambs  from  September  16  to  January  1, 
a  period  of  106  days.  There  were  9  lambs  in  each  lot,  with  the 
exception  of  Lots  I  and  IX,  which  contained  10  and  8  lambs  respec- 
tively. The  animals  received  the  same  feeds  as  in  the  previous  ex- 


"This  bulletin,  page  4. 


1914} 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


15 


periment,  with  the  exception  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment 
cabbage  and  a  little  green  clover  were  added  to  the  ration.  The  feeds 
were  not  analyzed.  A  summary  of  the  data  is  given  in  Table  19. 

TABLE  19. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  CURTISS  AND  WILSON  AT  THE  IOWA  STATION" 


Lot 

Breed 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Southdown    

Ibs. 
65 

Ibs. 
102 

Ibs. 
4  2 

therms 
26  0 

lb*. 
0  3*? 

II 

Shropshire   

88 

126 

3  6 

22  3 

0  36 

III 

Oxford    

95 

138 

3  7 

226 

0  40 

IV 

Suffolk    

92 

134 

3  7 

23  0 

0  40 

v 

Lincoln   

94 

144 

3  6 

22  3 

0  46 

VI 

Leicester    

86 

133 

3.8 

23.7 

04' 

VII 

Cotswold    

85 

138 

3  8 

23  7 

0  50 

VIII 

Dorset  

82 

128 

4.0 

25.1 

043 

IX 

Merino    . 

74 

113 

4.1 

25.1 

0.37 

It  is  noticeable  that  with  an  increased  amount  of  protein  and 
energy  the  gains  in  this  experiment,  altho  very  good,  were  considerably 
lower  than  in  the  experiment  of  the  previous  year.  Curtiss  and  Wil- 
son attributed  this  difference  to  the  fact  that  the  lambs  of  the  latter 
experiment  were  three  months  younger  than  those  of  the  earlier  ex- 
periment, and  that  the  weather  conditions  were  less  favorable. 

Kennedy  and  Marshall,"  also  at  the  Iowa  Station,  fed  4  lots  of 
10  lambs  each,  from  October  1  to  November  25,  56  days.  The  feeds 
were  not  analyzed.  In  calculating  the  digestible  protein,  the  value  for 
speltz  was  taken  from  Bulletin  No.  114  of  the  South  Dakota  Station. 
A  summary  of  the  data  is  given  in  Table  20. 

TABLE  20. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  KENNEDY  AND  MARSHALL  AT  THE  IOWA  STATION" 


Digest!- 

Net 

Aver- 

Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

ble  pro- 
tein per 
IflOfl 

.   energy 
per  1000 

age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Bran    speltz    clover  hay  

Ill 

137 

3.8 

280 

046 

II 

Bran,  soy  beans,  clover  hay.. 

110 

133 

8.1 

25.2 

0.41 

in 

Corn,  gluten  feed,  'bran,  clover 

110 

135 

4.6 

27.7 

0.45 

IV 

Corn.  bran,  clover  hav.. 

109 

134 

3.8 

28.6 

0.45 

Altho  the  gains  were  very  good  in  all  instances,  the  lots  receiving 
the  smallest  amounts  of  protein  made  gains  as  high  as  or  slightly  higher 
than  the  lots  receiving  the  largest  amounts  of  protein.  As  the  energy 
was  amply  sufficient,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  advantage  in  feed- 


16 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


ing  more  than  3.8  pounds  of  protein.  Perhaps  a  smaller  amount  of 
protein  would  have  sufficed.  The  large  gains  are  accounted  for  possibly 
in  part  by  the  short  duration  of  the  experiment. 

Kennedy,  Robbins,  and  Kildee,18  in  experiments  extending  over 
three  years,  fed  different  combinations  of  hay,  grain,  and  succulents. 
The  feeds  were  analyzed  and  careful  records  were  kept.  A  summary 
of  the  data  of  the  three  experiments  is  given  in  Table  21. 


TABLE  21. —  EXPERIMENTS  BY  KENNEDY,  BOBBINS,  AND  KILDEE  AT  THE  IOWA 

STATION" 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

First  year:    7  lambs  to  a  lot,  112  days 

I 
II 

III 
IV 

Corn,  oats,  bran,  man- 
gels, alfalfa  hay  .  .  . 
Corn,  oats,  bran,  man- 
gels, sugar  beets,  al- 
falfa hay    

Ibs. 
79 

78 
78 
80 

Ibs. 
128 

128 
125 
121 

Ibs. 
4.6 

4.6 
4.3 
4.4 

1:4.2 

1:4.2 
1:4.2 
1:3.7 

therms 
21.6 

22.9 
22.0 
20.0 

Ibs. 
0.44 

0.45 
0.42 
0.37 

Corn,    oats,    bran,    si- 
lage,  alfalfa   hay.  . 
Corn,    oats,    bran,    al- 
falfa hay  .. 

Second  year:    10  lambs  to  a  lot,  84  days 


I 
II 

Corn,  mixed  hay,  cow- 
pea  hay,  alfalfa  hay 
Corn,    turnips,    mixed 
hay,     cowpea     hay, 
alfalfa  hay  

69 
67 

97 
93 

3.1 
3.3 

1:6.1 
1:5.9 

23.3 
24.7 

0.33 
0.30 

III 

IV 

Corn,    sugar    beets, 
mixed   hay,    cowpea 
hay,  alfalfa  hay  .  .  . 
Corn,   cabbage,  mixed 
hay,     cowpea     hay, 
alfalfa  hav  . 

68 
69 

102 

94 

3.3 
3.5 

1:5.9 
1:5.8 

25.9 
26.0 

0.41 
0.30 

Third  year:    9  lambs  to  a  lot,  168  days 


I 

Corn,  cottonseed   meal, 
mixed  hay  

76 

326 

2.1 

1:4.1 

19.8 

0.30 

II 
III 

Corn,  cottonseed   meal, 
silage,  mixed  hay  . 
Corn,  cottonseed   meal, 
sugar  beets,  mixed 
hav  . 

78 
74 

126 
139 

2.1 
2.2 

1:4.1 
1:3.1 

20.3 
21.2 

0.29 
0.39 

IV 

Corn,  cottonseed   meal, 
mangels,  mixed  hay 

71 

133 

2.3 

1:3.3 

20.1 

0.37 

In  the  experiment  "of  the  first  year,  4  lots  of  7  lambs  each  were 
fed  from  December  28  to  April  19,  112  days.  The  gains  show  that 
there  was  ample  protein  and  energy  in  the  ration  for  fattening. 


1914] 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


17 


In  the  experiment  of  the  second  year,  4  lots  of  10  lambs  each  were 
fed  from  November  15  to  February  7,  a  period  of  84  days.  Again  the 
gains  were  good,  indicating  that  the  protein  and  energy  were  suffi- 
cient. It  will  also  be  noted  that  while  the  energy  was  somewhat 
greater,  the  protein  considerably  lower,  and  the  feeding  period  shorter 
than  in  the  experiment  of  the  first  year,  the  gains  were  somewhat  less. 

In  the  experiment  of  the  third  year,  4  lots  of  9  lambs  each  were 
fed  from  September  11  to  February  2G,  a  period  of  168  days.  Altho 
this  was  considerably  longer  than  the  feeding  period  of  the  second 
year,  and  altho  considerably  less  protein  was  consumed,  yet  the  gains 
were  as  large.  Compared  with  the  first  year,  however,  the  average 
daily  gains  were  smaller.  This  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that 
the  experiment  of  the  first  year  was  run  during  cold  weather  (Decem- 
ber 28  to  April  19,  112  days),  which  is  generally  considered  to  be  more 
conducive  to  good  gains,  while  the  experiment  of  the  third  year,  altho 
extending  into  cold  weather,  was  begun  in  warmer  weather  (Septem- 
ber 11  to  February  26,  168  days).  If  the  gains  of  only  the  last  112 
days  of  the  third-year  experiment  are  taken  into  consideration,  the 
average  daily  gain  of  all  the  lots  was  0.44  pound.  This  is  practically 
the  same  gain  as  was  made  in  the  first-year  experiment,  and  it  was 
made  on  slightly  less  energy  and  about  two-thirds  the  amount  of 
protein. 

Burnett,19  of  the  Nebraska  Station,  fed  8  lots  of  lambs  for  98  days. 
The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  A  summary  of  the  data  is  given  in  Table 
22. 

The  results  seem  to  indicate  that  lambs  of  this  weight  should  be 
fed  from  2.3  to  3.1  pounds  of  protein.  In  no  instance  was  a  smaller 

TABLE  22. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  BURNETT  AT  THE  NEBRASKA  STATION" 


Lot 

Ration 

No. 
in 
lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn,    alfalfa 

16 

Ibs. 
53 

Ibs. 

85 

Ibs. 
3.1 

1:  5.9 

therms 
19.4 

Ibs. 
0.33 

II 
III 
IV 

Corn,    oats,    al- 
falfa hay  
Corn,   bran,   al- 
falfa hay  
Corn,    prairie 
hay   

16 
16 
8 

54 
52 
52 

85 
82 
72 

3.2 
3.3 
1.7 

1:  5.6 
1:  5.5 
1:10.5 

18.5 
18.1 
17.0 

0.32 
0.30 
0.20 

V 
VI 
VII 
VIII 

Corn,  oil  meal, 
prairie   hay.. 
Corn,    oats, 
prairie   hay.  . 
Corn,  bran, 
prairie   hay.  . 
Corn,  bran, 
alfalfa   hay.  . 

8 
8 
8 
20 

52 
52 
51 
53 

77 
71 
70 
83 

2.3 
1.8 
1.9 
3.3 

1:  8.0 
1:10.0 
1:  9.0 
1:   5.2 

17.8 
16.7 
16.3 
17.5 

0.24 
0.19 
0.19 
0.34 

18 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


I  January, 


amount  conducive  to  good  gains.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the 
energy  also  was  lower  in  the  low-protein  lots,  which  fact  undoubtedly 
influenced  the  gains  to  a  certain  extent. 

In  the  following  year,  Burnett,20  fed  10  lots  of  lambs  for  98  days, 
beginning  December  8.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  Inasmuch  as 
four  lots  received  sorghum  hay,  for  which  no  coefficients  of  digesti- 
bility and  no  energy  values  could  be  found,  the  results  for  these  four 
lots  have  not  been  recalculated.  A  summary  of  the  data  for  the  six 
other  lots  is  given  in  Table  23. 


TABLE  23. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  BURNETT  AT  THE  NEBRASKA  STATION20 


Lot 

Ration 

No. 
in 
lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 

Aver- 
age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

1 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay 

14 

56 

92 

3.8 

1:5.9 

23.6 

0.37 

II 

Corn,    oats,    al- 

falfa hay.  .  .  . 

14 

57 

89 

3.9 

1:5.6 

22.9 

0.33 

III 

Corn,    bran,    al- 

falfa hay.  .  .  . 

14 

56 

90 

4.0 

1:5.4 

22.5 

0.35 

IV 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay 

12 

62 

93 

3.6 

1:6.0 

23.0 

0.32 

V 

Corn,    oats,    al- 

falfa hay.  .  .  . 

12 

60 

94 

3.7 

1:5.5 

22.0 

0.35 

VI 

Corn,    bran,    al- 

falfa hay  

12 

62 

96 

3.7       !     1:5.4 

21.1 

0.35 

The  lots  in  this  second  experiment  all  made  better  gains  than 
those  of  the  high-protein  lots  of  the  preceding  experiment.  Whether 
this  increase  was  due  to  the  additional  amount  of  protein  fed,  cannot 
be  determined,  since  there  was  also  a  considerable  increase  in  the 
amount  of  energy  consumed. 

Buffum  and  Griffith,21  at  the  Colorado  Station,  fed  13  lots  of 
Mexican  range  lambs.  Four  lots  were  fed  from  March  5  to  May  28, 
84  days;  five  lots,  from  March  5  to  June  6,  93  days;  and  four  lots, 
from  January  23  to  May  2,  99  days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed. 
In  recalculating  the  data  of  this  experiment,  the  coefficients  of  di- 
gestibility of  the  protein  of  alfalfa  and  native  hay  were  taken  from 
the  results  of  digestion  trials  at  the  Colorado  Station  ;*  the  coefficient 
of  beet  pulp,  from  Farmers'  Bulletin  346  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of 
Agriculture,  and  the  coefficient  of  speltz  from  Bulletin  114  of  the 
South  Dakota  station.  A  summary  of  the  data  is  given  in  Table  24. 

In  this  experiment,  Lots  X,  XI,  XII,  and  XIII,  on  the  lower  pro- 
tein plane,  made  the  highest  gains.  The  lower  gains  made  by  the  other 
lots  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  deficiency  in  the  energy  supply, 

•Colo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  93  (1904). 


1914]  AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS  19 

TABLE  24. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  BUFFUM  AND  GRIFFITH  AT  THE  COLORADO  STATION21 


Lot 

Eation 

No. 
in 

lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Length 
of  experi- 
ment 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

Ibx. 

Ibs. 

days 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Wheat,     barley, 

beet  pulp,  al- 

falfa hay  

5 

57 

72 

84 

3.7 

16.4 

0.19 

II 

Wheat,     barley, 

beet  pulp,  al- 

falfa hay  

5 

58 

77 

84 

4.4 

21.6 

0.23 

III 

Wheat,     barley, 

sugar      beets, 

alfalfa  hay.  . 

5 

52 

73 

84 

4.0 

18.4 

0.25 

IV 

Wheat,     barley, 

sugar      beets, 

alfalfa  hay.  . 

5 

58 

82 

84 

2.8 

15.0 

0.28 

V 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay 

5 

54 

78 

93 

3.9 

21.3 

0.29 

VI 

Speltz,      alfalfa 

hay    

•) 

54 

78 

93 

4.3 

22.0 

0.31 

VII 

Barley,     alfalfa 

hay    . 

5 

57 

77 

93 

4.2 

20.9 

0.26 

VIII 

Barley,      wheat, 

alfalfa  hay.  . 

5 

47 

71 

93 

4.6 

23.4 

0.29 

IX 

Speltz,      wheat, 

alfalfa  hay.  . 

5 

57 

75 

93 

4.0 

20.4 

0.20 

X 

Oats,     barley, 

wheat,  alfalfa 

hav    . 

4 

75 

104 

99 

3.5 

18.7 

0.36 

XI 

Oats,    barley, 

wheat,  alfalfa 

hay  

4 

85 

108 

99 

2.9 

16.2 

0.32 

XII 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay 

4 

84 

115 

99 

3.2 

18.7 

0.39 

XIII 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay 

4 

84 

112 

99 

2.8 

17.5 

0.36 

as  the  latter  appears  to  have  been  sufficient  for  all  except  Lots  I  and 
IV.  These  results  indicate  that  the  source  of  the  protein  or  the 
energy,  or  both,  has  considerable  influence  upon  the  gains. 

Carlyle  and  Morton,22  also  at  the  Colorado  Station,  fed  5  lots  of 
grade  Shropshire  lambs;  the  first  two  lots,  consisting  of  125  lambs 
each,  from  December  1  to  January  12,  42  days,  and  the  last  three  lots, 
consisting  of  200  lambs  each,  from  November  23  to  February  29,  98 
days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  The  value  for  the  digestible  pro- 
tein in  the  alfalfa  hay  was  taken  from  the  same  source  as  in  the  pre- 
vious experiment."  A  summary  of  the  data  is  given  in  Table  25. 

A  comparison  of  Lots  I  and  II  reveals  no  apparent  advantage  in 
feeding  an  increased  amount  of  protein  by  increasing  the  oil  meal,  as 
was  done  in  the  case  of  Lot  I,  especially  when  the  much  larger  amount 

•Colo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  93  (1904). 


20 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


TABLE  25. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  CARLYLE  AND  MORTON  AT  THE  COLORADO  STATION22 


Digesti- 

Net 

Aver- 

Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

ble  pro- 
tein per 
1000 

energy 
per  1000 

age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Corn,  oil  meal,  alfalfa  hay.  .  .  . 

101 

114 

5.7 

27.4 

0.31 

II 

Corn,  oil  meal,  alfalfa  hay.  .  .  . 

100 

112 

3.2 

19.6 

0.29 

III 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

58 

97 

4.3 

22.4 

0.39 

IV 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

61 

96 

3.9 

21.2 

0.35 

V 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

59 

93 

4.6 

23.7 

0.34 

of  energy  received  by  Lot  I  is  taken  into  consideration.  Neither  does 
there  appear  to  have  been  any  advantage  in  increasing  the  amount  of 
protein  by  increasing  the  alfalfa  hay.  (Note  Lots  III,  IV,  and  V.) 

Chilcott,23  at  the  South  Dakota  Station,  fed  2  lots  of  12  grade 
Shropshire  and  Hampshire  lambs  each,  from  December  11  to  March 
26,  a  period  of  105  days.  The  grain  was  analyzed  but  the  hay  was  not. 
In  recalculating  the  data  of  this  experiment,  the  coefficients  of  digesti- 
bility of  the  protein  in  barley  and  speltz,  and  the  digestible  protein  in 
brome  hay  as  determined  at  that  station*  were  used.  The  data  are 
summarized  in  Table  26. 

TABLE  26. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  CHILCOTT  AT  THE  SOUTH  DAKOTA  STATION28 


Digesti- 

Net 

Aver- 

Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

ble  pro- 
tein per 
IflOO 

energy 
per  1000 

age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gam 

Us. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Speltz,  brome  hay  

84 

109 

2.0 

18.2 

0.24 

II 

Barley,  brome  hay..  . 

84 

122 

2.0 

17.5 

0.36 

The  protein  appears  to  have  been  sufficient  in  Lot  II  to  make  good 
gains ;  yet  an  additional  amount  might  have  produced  still  better  gains. 
The  source  of  the  protein  seems  to  have  influenced  the  increase  to  a 
considerable  extent,  barley  giving  better  results  than  speltz. 

Wilson  and  Skinner,24  also  at  the  South  Dakota  Station,  fed  9 
lots  of  9  lambs  each  (grade  Shropshire  and  Hampshire),  from  Janu- 
ary 5  to  April  24,  109  days.  The  speltz,  the  macaroni  wheat,  and  the 
bread  wheat  were  analyzed.  The  digestible  protein  in  native  hay  and 
the  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  protein  in  macaroni  wheat,  speltz, 
and  oats  were  taken  from  results  obtained  at  that  station.  A  sum- 
mary of  the  data  is  given  in  Table  27. 

•So.  Dak.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  114  (1909). 


1914} 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


21 


TABLE  27. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  WILSON  AND  SKINNER  AT  THE  SOUTH  DAKOTA 

STATION24 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
Cain 

I 

Corn,  prairie  hay  

Ibs. 
81 

Ibs. 
120 

Its. 
1  5 

therms 
20  0 

Ibs. 
0  35 

IX 

Wheat    prairie  hay   

78 

118 

2  0 

20  5 

0  37 

III 
IV 

Macaroni  wheat,  prairie  hay.. 
Speltz,  prairie  hay  

81 
79 

119 

118 

1.8 
2.2 

19.6 
22.9 

0.35 
0.35 

y 

Speltz    prairie  hay  

81 

115 

2.1 

22  1 

0.31 

VI 

Corn,  bran,  prairie  hay  

81 

121 

2.0 

19.4 

0.37 

VII 

Macaroni  wheat,  bran,  prairie 
hay    

81 

118 

2.3 

20.0 

0.34 

VIII 

Macaroni    wheat,   bran,    prairie 
hay    

82 

116 

2.1 

18.6 

0.31 

IX 

Speltz,  bran,  prairie  hay  

82 

119 

2.6 

21.3 

0.34 

Good  gains  were  made  on  these  rations,  which  contained  a  rela- 
tively small  amount  of  protein  but  a  large  amount  of  energy.  The 
gains  seemed  to  depend,  not  upon  the  amount  either  of  protein  or  of 
energy  fed  but  possibly  upon  the  source  of  the  nutrients.  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  these  gains  were  made  on  rations  containing  only  one- 
half  to  two-thirds  the  quantity  of  protein  required  by  Kellner  's  stand- 
ard for  lambs  of  this  weight. 

Wilson,25  in  another  experiment  at  the  South  Dakota  Station,  fed 
2  lots  of  10  grade  lambs  each,  from  January  24  to  March  25,  a  period 
of  60  days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  In  calculating  the  digesti- 
ble protein,  the  composition  and  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the 
crude  protein  in  alfalfa  and  native  hay  were  taken  from  the  results 
of  digestion  trials  at  that  station."  A  summary  of  the  data  is  given 
in  Table  28. 

TABLE  28. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  WILSON  AT  THE  SOUTH  DAKOTA  STATION25 


Digesti- 

Net 

Aver- 

Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

ble  pro- 
tein per 
1000 

energy 
per  1000 

age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Corn,  oats,  oil  meal,  alfalfa  hay 

88 

119 

3.9 

19.0 

0.51 

II 

Corn,  oats,  oil  meal,  prairie  hay 

87 

111 

2.0 

17.9 

0.38 

Altho  the  high-protein  lot  made  the  highest  gain,  the  low-protein 
lot  also  made  a  very  good  gain,  especially  when  the  somewhat  smaller 
amount  of  energy  consumed  by  the  low-protein  lot  is  taken  into  con- 
sideration. The  short  duration  of  the  experiment  possibly  detracts 
from  its  value  when  compared  with  other  experiments  of  longer  dura- 
tion. 


"So.  Dak.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  114  (1909). 


22 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


McDonald  and  Maloiie,28  at  the  Oklahoma  Station,  fed  4  lots  of 
10  lambs  each,  from  October  1  to  February  18,  a  period  of  140  days. 
None  of  the  feeds  was  analyzed.  A  summary  of  the  data  is  given  in 
Table  29. 

TABLE  29. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  MCDONALD  AND  MALONE  AT  THE  OKLAHOMA 

STATION26 


Lot 

Ration 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

T 

Corn  meal,  alfalfa  hay  

Ibs. 

77 

Ibs. 

128 

Ibs. 
25 

therms 
192 

Ibs. 
0  36 

n 

Corn  meal,  cowpea  hay  

73 

125 

2  3 

206 

0  37 

in 

IV 

Corn     meal,     cottonseed     meal, 
corn  stover,  alfalfa  hay  
Corn     meal,     cottonseed     meal, 
prairie  hay  

77 
78 

125 

117 

3.1 

2.8 

18.5 
18.2 

0.34 

0.28 

The  gains  made  by  Lots  III  and  IV  were  not  so  large  as  those 
made  by  Lots  I  and  II,  altho  Lots  III  and  IV  received  more  protein 
and  less  energy  than  Lots  I  and  II.  The  gains  seemed  to  depend 
more  upon  the  energy  in  the  ration  than  upon  the  protein.  The  re- 
sults indicate  that  the  lower  amounts  of  protein  were  sufficient  for 
lambs  of  this  weight. 

Richards  and  Kleinheinz,27  at  the  Wisconsin  Station,  fed  2  lots 
of  10  ewe  lambs  each,  for  a  period  of  84  days  beginning  January  20. 
The  feeds  were  analyzed  and  the  digestible  nutrients  calculated.  A 
summary  of  the  data  is  given  in  Table  30. 

TABLE  30. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  RICHARDS  AND  KLEINHEINZ  AT  THE  WISCONSIN 

STATION27 


Lot 

Ration 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn,  soy  beans,  clover 
hay,  June  grass  hay, 
corn  stover  

Ibs. 
103 

Ibs. 
119 

Ibs. 
2.7 

1:4.9 

therms 
12.7 

Ibs. 
0.20 

II 

Corn,  oats,  clover  hay, 
June  grass  hay, 
corn  stover  

102 

116 

1.5 

1:9.0 

12.6 

0.16 

The  very  poor  gains  made  by  both  lots  were  probably  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  rations  contained  too  small  an  amount  of  energy,  es- 
pecially since  Lot  I,  which  received  a  considerably  larger  amount  of 
protein  than  Lot  II,  did  not  make  a  corresponding  gain. 


1914] 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


23 


Humphrey  and  Kleinhcinz,28  also  at  the  Wisconsin  Station,  fed  2 
lots  of  9  lambs  each,  for  a  period  of  84  days  beginning  January  23. 
The  feeds  were  analyzed.  A  summary  of  the  data  is  given  in  Table  31. 

TABLE  31. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  HUMPHREY  AND  KLEINHEINZ  AT  THE  WISCONSIN 

STATION28 


Lot 

Ration 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Shelled  corn,  soy  beans,  mixed 
hay  corn  stover  

Ibs. 
113 

Ibs. 
126 

Ibs. 
2.0 

therms 
11.0 

Ibs. 
0.16 

II 

Shelled  corn,  oats,  mixed  hay, 
corn  stover  

113 

120 

1.1 

10.8 

0.09 

In  this  experiment,  too,  the  gains  were  very  poor,  but  this  is  not 
strange,  as  the  amount  of  energy  consumed  in  each  instance  was  about 
the  same  as  Armsby's  standard  for  maintenance*.  Lot  I,  consuming 
the  more  protein,  made  the  better  gain. 

In  the  following  year,  Humphrey  and  Kleinheinz,2"  fed  2  lots  of 
10  lambs  each  for  a  period  of  91  days  beginning  January  13.  The 
feeds  were  analyzed  and  the  digestible  nutrients  calculated.  A  sum- 
mary of  the  data  is  given  in  Table  32. 

TABLE  32. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  HUMPHREY  AND  KLEINHEINZ  AT  THE  WISCONSIN 

STATION* 


Digesti- 

Net 

Aver- 

Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

ble  pro- 
tein per 

1000 

energy 
per  1000 

age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gam 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibi. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Oats,  dried  beet  pulp,  clover  hay 

93 

115 

2.1 

12.6 

0.24 

II 

Oats.  corn,  clover  hav.  . 

93 

115 

2.1 

14.0 

0.24 

The  gains  were  probably  lessened  by  the  fact  that  the  energy  was 
insufficient  and  the  protein  somewhat  low. 

Arkell,80  at  the  New  Hampshire  Station,  fed  4  lots  of  5  lambs 
each,  from  December  6  to  March  14,  a  period  of  90  days.  The  feeds 
were  analyzed  and  the  digestible  nutrients  calculated.  A  summary 
of  Arkell 's  data  is  shown  in  Table  33. 

The  gains  produced  are  certainly  surprising  when  one  considers 
the  amounts  of  protein  and  energy  consumed.  The  digestible  protein 
down  to  0.9  pound  was  ample  for  fair  gains,  but  the  energy  seems  to 
have  been  very  low. 


•U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Farmers'  Bui.  346,  p.  17. 


24  BULLETIN  No.  166  [January, 

TABLE  33. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  ARKELL  AT  THE  NEW  HAMPSHIRE  STATION30 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 
II 
III 

Corn,  bran,  oats,  tur- 
nips, clover  hay.  .  .  . 
Corn,  bran,  oats,  tur- 
nips, timothy  hay.  . 
Corn,   bran,    oats, 
clover  hay  

Ibs. 
102 
100    ' 
105 

Ibs. 
137 
123 
134 

Ibs. 
1.4 
0.9 
1.9 

1:  6.2 
1:10.5 
1:  5.9 

therms 
8.1 
8.6 
11.4 

Ibs. 
0.33 
0.23 
0.29 

IV 

Corn,   bran,   oats, 
turnips,  clover  hay. 

106 

143 

1.7 

1:  6.6 

9.9 

0.38 

Carmichael,81  at  the  Ohio  Station,  fed  4  lots  of  40  range  lambs 
each,  from  November  30  to  March  12,  102  days.  None  of  the  feeds 
was  analyzed,  and  the  total  amount  of  hay  fed  was  estimated  from 
the  quantities  determined  at  different  times  during  the  experiment. 
The  data  are  summarized  in  Table  34. 

TABLE  34. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  CARMICHAEL  AT  THE  OHIO  STATION" 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Corn,   alfalfa  hay  

Ibs. 
67 

Ibs. 
98 

Ibs. 
25 

therms 
193 

Ibs. 
0.30 

II 

Corn,   cottonseed   meal,   alfalfa 
hay 

67 

98 

32 

193 

031 

in 

IV 

Corn,  oil  meal,  alfalfa  hay.  .  .  . 
Corn,  alfalfa  hav.  . 

65 
67 

98 
97 

3.1 

2.5 

19.4 
19.5 

0.30 
0.31 

The  energy  was  about  the  same  for  all  lots,  but  the  protein  varied 
considerably.  It  is  of  interest  to  note,  however,  that  the  increase  in 
protein,  as  provided  by  the  cottonseed  meal  and  oil  meal  in  Lots  II 
and  III  respectively,  did  not  increase  the  gains. 

Carmichael  and  Hammond,33  at  the  Ohio  Station,  conducted  feed- 
ing experiments  extending  over  three  years.  In  each  experiment  the 
feeds  were  weighed  carefully  and  analyzed.  A  summary  of  the  data 
obtained  is  given  in  Table  35. 

In  the  experiment  of  the  first  year,  4  lots  of  25  choice  western 
lambs  each,  were  fed  from  December  22  to  March  1,  a  period  of  70 
days.  A  comparison  of  Lots  I  and  II  with  Lot  III  indicates  again 
that  the  source  of  the  nutrients  had  considerable  influence  upon  the 
gains.  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  Lot  IV,  receiving  considerably 
more  protein  than  Lot  III  and  the  same  amount  of  energy,  did  not 
make  as  good  an  average  gain.  The  investigators  state  that  the  clover 
hay  was  of  excellent  quality  while  the  alfalfa  hay  was  not  so  good. 


1914] 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


25 


TABLE  35. —  EXPERIMENTS  BY  CARMICHAEL  AND  HAMMOND  AT  THE  OHIO  STATION" 


Lot 

Eation 

No. 

in 
lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

First  year:     70  days 


I 

Corn,     oil     meal,     corn 

25 

ns. 

73 

Tbs. 
91 

1JJS. 

2  1 

therms 
186 

Ibs. 
0  26 

II 

Corn,  oil  meal,  soy  bean 
straw   

25 

73 

93 

23 

199 

0  28 

III 

Corn,  clover  hay  

25 

73 

98 

1  9 

19  5 

0  36 

IV 

Corn,  alfalfa  hav.  .  . 

25 

73 

97 

2.5 

19.4 

0.33 

Second  year:     93  days 


I 

Corn,  clover  hay  ....... 

14 

64 

94 

1  8 

199 

0  32 

n 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

14 

63 

95 

2.6 

20  2 

034 

in 

Corn,  oat  straw  

13 

63 

80 

13 

19  2 

0  18 

IV 

Corn,  corn  stover  

13 

65 

73 

1.5 

20.5 

0.23 

V 

Corn,     oil     meal,    clover 
hav  .. 

14 

64 

91 

2.6 

20.0 

0.29 

VI 

Corn,    oil    meal,    alfalfa 
hav  .. 

14 

64 

95 

3.3 

19.8 

0.34 

VII 

vin 

Corn,  oil  meal,  oat  straw 
Corn,     oil     meal,     corn 
stover    . 

14 

14 

63 
62 

85 
86 

2.1 
2.3 

18.5 
20.1 

0.24 
0.26 

Third  year:     83  days 


I 

Corn,  clover  hay  

15 

61 

89 

2.0 

20.5 

0.33 

n 

Corn,  alfalfa  hay  

15 

62 

92 

2.6 

20.1 

0.37 

in 

Corn,  oat  straw  

15 

59 

77 

1.4 

17.9 

0.22 

IV 

Corn,  corn  stover  

15 

58 

79 

1.5 

19.8 

0.26 

V 

Corn,     oil    meal,    clover 
hay    

15 

63 

91 

2.8 

20.4 

0.34 

VI 

Corn,    oil    meal,    alfalfa 
hay  

15    • 

61 

94 

3.5 

20.3 

0.39 

VII 
VIII 

Corn,  oil  meal,  oat  straw 
Corn,     oil      meal,     corn 
stover    

15 
15 

62 
60 

82 
86 

2.2 
2.3 

18.1 
19.8 

0.25 
0.31 

In  the  experiment  of  the  second  year,  8  lots  of  range  lambs  were 
fed  from  January  3  to  April  5,  a  period  of  93  days.  Again  the  data 
show  that  the  source  of  the  nutrients  had  considerable  influence  upon 
the  gains.  If  Lot  I  is  compared  with  Lot  V,  it  is  found  that  there 
was  no  advantage  in  increasing  the  protein  of  the  ration  from  1.8  to 
2.6  pounds  per  day  by  adding  oil  meal,  the  energy  remaining  the  same. 
Likewise,  it  is  seen  that  there  was  no  additional  gain  obtained  by  in- 
creasing the  protein  from  2.6  pounds  in  Lot  II  to  3.3  pounds  in  Lot 
VI.  In  the  cases  of  lots  receiving  the  non-nitrogenous  roughages,  how- 
ever, an  increase  in  protein  by  the  use  of  oil  meal  caused  additional 
gains. 

The  experiment  was  repeated  in  practically  the  same  manner  the 
following  year.  Eight  lots  of  15  lambs  each  were  fed  from  November 
18  to  February  8,  a  period  of  83  days.  All  gains  were  slightly  better 


26 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


than  those  of  the  previous  year.  The  source  of  the  nutrients  appar- 
ently had  some* influence  upon  the  gains,  the  use  of  oil  meal  resulting 
in  all  cases  in  slightly  better  gains. 

The  results  of  all  four  Ohio  experiments  indicate  that  for  lambs 
of  these  weights,  19  or  20  therms  of  energy  are  sufficient  for  good 
gains,  provided  the  source  and  the  amount  of  the  protein  of  the  ration 
are  favorable.  They  indicate  also  that  there  is  no  marked  advantage 
in  feeding  over  2.5  pounds  of  protein  to  lambs  of  these  weights. 

Lyman  and  Phelps,83  at  the  Connecticut  (Storrs)  Station,  fed  2 
lots  of  10  grade  Shropshire  lambs  each,  for  a  period  of  62  days.  A 
third  lot  of  200  range  lambs  was  fed  for  48  days.  The  feeds  were  not 
analyzed  but  the  digestible  nutrients  were  calculated.  The  data  are 
summarized  in  Table  36. 

TABLE  36. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  LYMAN  AND  PHELPS  AT  THE  CONNECTICUT 
(STORES)  STATION33 


Lot 

Ration 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 

Aver- 
age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Corn,  bran,  pea  meal, 

silage,  clover  rowen 

87 

Ill 

3.3 

1:4.8 

18.6 

0.39 

II 

Corn,    pea    meal,    si- 

lage,   clover    rowen 

87 

115 

2.7 

1:7.0 

22.7 

0.45 

m 

Corn,  pea  meal,  bran, 

silage,  clover  rowen 

73 

88 

3.3 

1:5.8 

22.3 

0.32 

From  a  comparison  of  Lots  I  and  II,  made  up  of  the  same  kind 
of  lambs,  it  is  seen  that  the  gains  may  have  depended  upon  the  amount 
of  energy  consumed  rather  than  upon  the  amount  of  protein.  In  Lot 
III,  also,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  no  advantage  in  increasing  the 
protein.  The  use  of  bran  seems  to  have  been  detrimental. 

Shaw,84  at  the  Minnesota  Station,  fed  10  grade  Dorset  lambs  for 
112  days,  beginning  November  23.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  From 
a  summary  of  the  data  given  in  Table  37,  it  is  apparent  that  the  pro- 
tein and  the  energy  were  both  sufficient;  but  too  much  importance 
should  not  be  attached  to  an  experiment  where  a  check  is  not  run. 

TABLE  37. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  SHAW  AT  THE  MINNESOTA  STATION** 


Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digestible 
protein  per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Average 
daily 
gain 

Oats,  bran,  barley,  oil  cake, 
roots,  native  hav.  . 

Ibs. 
93 

Ibs. 
134 

Ibs. 
2.7 

therms 
17.1 

Ibs. 
0.37 

1914} 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


27 


Linfield,35  at  the  Montana  Station,  fed  5  lots  of  22  grade  Down 
lambs  each,  for  a  period  of  95  days  beginning  November  22  and  end- 
ing February  25.  None  of  the  feeds  was  analyzed.  The  data  are 
summarized  in  Table  38. 

TABLE  38. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  LINFIELD  AT  THE  MONTANA  STATION35 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

II 

Wheat  screenings,  clover  hay.  . 
Wheat,  clover  hay  

Ibs. 
67 
71 

Ibs. 
94 
96 

Ibs. 
2.8 
2.6 

therms 
17.6 
16.6 

Ibs. 
0.29 
027 

III 

Oats,  clover  hay  

71 

92 

2  8 

15.8 

022 

IV 

Barley,  clover  hay  

73 

97 

2.6 

16.3 

0.26 

V 

Wheat,  oats,  barley,  clover  hay 

54 

76 

2.6 

15.9 

0.29 

Probably  better  gains  would  have  resulted  if  the  energy  had  been 
increased  somewhat,  as  it  appears  to  have  been  below  the  standard 
even  for  growing  lambs. 

In  a  continuation  of  the  foregoing  experiment,  Linfield38  fed  5 
lots  of  24  range  lambs  each,  for  a  period  of  97  days  beginning  No- 
vember 20  and  ending  February  26.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed. 
The  data  are  summarized  in  Table  39. 


TABLE  39. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  LINFIELD  AT  THE  MONTANA  STATION88 


Digest!- 

Net 

Aver- 

Lot 

Hation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

ble  pro- 
tein per 
1000 

energy 
per  1000 

age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gam 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

Wheat  screenings,  clover  hay.  . 

57 

82 

2.7 

16.3 

0.26 

II 

Wheat    clover  hay  

57 

79 

2.7 

16.7 

0.22 

III 

58 

81 

2.7 

15.1 

0.25 

IV 

Barley    clover  hay     

57 

80 

2.7 

16.9 

0.23 

V 

Barley,  oats,  wheat,  clover  hay. 

58 

80 

2.6 

16.0 

0.23 

The  protein  and  the  energy  consumed  were  about  the  same  as  in 
the  previous  experiment.  While  the  lambs  of  this  experiment  were 
considerably  smaller  than  those  of  the  former  experiment,  neverthe- 
less the  gains  were  almost  as  large.  The  energy  was  probably  insuffi- 
cient for  the  best  gains. 

Linfield,37  at  the  Utah  Station,  carried  on  feeding  experiments  ex- 
tending over  three  years.  The  feeds  were  analyzed  and  the  rations 
carefully  weighed.  The  data  are  summarized  in  Table  40. 


28  BULLETIN  No.  166  [January, 

TABLE  40. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  LINPIELD  AT  THE  UTAH  STATION" 


Lot 

Eation 

No. 
in 
lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

First  year:    90  days 


I 

Wheat,  alfalfa  hay  

24 

Us. 

47 

Ibs. 
64 

Ibs. 
3.6 

therms 
20.6 

Ibs. 
0.19 

II 

Frosted  wheat,  alfalfa 
hay  

24 

47 

66 

3.4 

21.3 

0.21 

III 

Wheat  screenings,  alfalfa 
hay  . 

24 

47 

66 

4.0 

23.6 

0.20 

IV 

Wheat  screenings,  alfalfa 
hay  

23 

47 

68 

3.8 

22.3 

0.24 

Second  year:    84  days 


I 

Wheat  screenings,  alfalfa 
hay  

25 

38 

47 

4.0 

19.8 

0.12 

II 

Wheat,  alfalfa  hay  

25 

37 

45 

3.6 

19.3 

0.11 

III 

Screenings,  bran,  alfalfa 
hav  . 

25 

39 

49 

3.5 

18.7 

0.12 

IV 

Screenings,  bran,  straw, 
alfalfa  hav.  .  . 

24 

38 

47 

3.8 

16.8 

0.10 

Third  year:    78  days 


I 
n 

in 

IV 

Screenings,  alfalfa  hay. 
Beet  pulp,  alfalfa  hay.  . 
Beet  pulp,  alfalfa  hay.  . 
Bran,     screenings,     beat 
pulp,  alfalfa  hay  

16 
17 
17 

17 

55 
61 

57 

54 

72 

77 
68 

80 

3.2 
2.3 
2.6 

2.8 

15.0 
12.4 
11.8 

15.9 

0.22 
0.21 
0.13 

0.33 

V 

Bran,     screenings,     beet 
pulp,  alfalfa  hay  

17 

54 

71 

3.1 

15.5 

0.21 

Very  poor  gains  were  made  in  the  experiment  of  the  first  year, 
altho  the  protein  and  energy  appear  sufficient.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  second  year  but  to  a  more  marked  extent.  The  somewhat  better 
gains  made  in  the  experiment  of  the  third  year  seem  to  have  been  due 
more  to  the  source  of  the  protein  and  energy  than  to  the  quantity. 

Clark,38  also  at  the  Utah  Station,  fed  2  lots  of  11  lambs  each,  for 
a  period  of  85  days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  A  summary  of 
the  data  is  given  in  Table  41. 

TABLE  41. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  CLARK  AT  THE  UTAH  STATION88 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Bran,    middlings,    sugar    beets, 
alfalfa  hay   

11*. 
86 

Ibs. 
116 

Ibs. 

3  2 

therms 
14  8 

Ibs. 
0.35 

II 

Bran,  middlings,  alfalfa  hay.  . 

83 

101 

4.3 

15.0 

0.22 

1914] 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


29 


The  energy  supply  for  these  lambs  was  quite  low.  Altho  Lot  I 
received  considerably  less  protein  than  Lot  II  and  the  same  amount  of 
energy,  it  made  much  the  higher  gain.  This  doubtless  was  due  to  the 
addition  of  sugar  beets  to  the  ration  of  Lot  I. 

Coffey,39  at  the  Illinois  Station,  fed  3  lots  of  10  Shropshire  lambs 
each,  for  98  days,  beginning  November  26,  on  a  ration  of  corn,  oats, 
bran,  oil  meal,  and  clover  hay.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  From  a 
summary  of  the  data  given  in  Table  42  it  is  evident  that  the  amounts 
of  protein  and  energy  consumed  were  sufficient  for  fair  fattening 
gains  for  lambs  of  these  ages. 

TABLE  42. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  COFFEY  AT  THE  ILLINOIS  STATION3* 


Lot 

Initial 
age 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Average 
daily 
gain 

I 
II 
III 

mos. 
9 
7 
6 

Ibs. 
95 

78 
63 

Ibs. 
123 
106 
92 

Ibs. 
2.8 
3.1 
3.1 

1:6.7 
1:6.8 
1:6.8 

therms 
20.1 
21.9 
22.2 

Ibs. 
0.28 
0.28 
0.30 

Craig  and  Melvin,40  under  the  direction  of  Coffey,  fed  6  lots  of 
10  Cotswold-Merino  lambs  each,  from  February  3  to  May  5,  a  period 
of  92  days.  All  lots  were  fed  a  ration  of  corn,  oats,  oil  meal,  and 
clover  hay.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  The  data  are  summarized 
in  Table  43. 


TABLE  43. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  CRAIG  AND  MELVIN  AT  THE  ILLINOIS  STATION" 


Lot 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digestible 
protein  per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Average 
daily 
gain 

I 
II 
III 
IV 
V 
VI 

Ibs. 
64 
65 
63 
64 
63 
63 

Ibs. 
97 

104 
107 
101   • 
99 
98 

Ibs. 
3.2 
3.3 
3.4 
3.3 
3.2 
3.2 

therms 
23.7 
24.9 
25.4 
24.9 
22.8 
22.5 

Ibs. 
0.36 
0.42 
0.47 
0.40 
0.39 
0.37 

Both  the  protein  and  the  energy  were  sufficient  for  very  good 
gains,  but  the  experiment  does  not  show  whether  or  not  less  protein 
in  the  ration  would  have  decreased  the  gains. 

Hammond,41  under  the  direction  of  Coffey,  fed  corn,  prepared  in 
various  ways,  and  clover  hay  to  6  lots  of  16  lambs  each,  for  98  days, 
beginning  November  18.  Another  lot  received  oil  meal  in  addition 


30 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


to  shelled  corn  and  clover  hay.  The  lambs  were  about  5y2  months 
old  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  The  silage  and  corn  stover 
were  analyzed ;  the  analyses  of  the  other  feeds  were  taken  from  Bulle- 
tin 71  of  the  Pennsylvania  Agricultural  Experiment  Station.  The 
digestible  nutrients  were  calculated  by  the  experimenter,  the  coeffi- 
cients of  digestibility  of  all  the  feeds,  with  the  exception  of  the  corn 
stover  and  the  shock  corn,  being  taken  from  Henry 's  ' '  Feeds  and  Feed- 
ing." The  coefficient  of  digestibility  of  corn  stover  was  taken  from 
Bulletin  58  of  the  Illinois  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  and  that 
of  shock  corn  from  the  above-mentioned  bulletin  of  tie  Pennsylvania 
Station.  The  data  are  summarized  in  Table  44. 


TABLE  44. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  HAMMOND  AT  THE  ILLINOIS  STATION" 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 
pounds 

Nutritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

I 

Shelled     corn,     clover 
hay   

Ibs. 
65 

Ibs. 
94 

Ibs. 
1.9 

1:10.0 

therms 
19  8 

Ibs. 
0  30 

II 
III 

Corn  meal,  clover  hay 
Corn    and    cob     meal, 
clover  hay.  ........ 

65 
66 

91 
92 

2.0 
1.7 

1:10.0 
1:11.2 

20.4 
19  5 

0.26 
027 

IV 
V 

Ear  corn,  clover  hay.. 
Shelled    corn,     silage, 
clover  hay  

66 
66 

94 
94 

1.9 
1.9 

1:10.1 
1:10.4 

22.7 
19.7 

0.29 
0.29 

VI 

Shelled  corn,  oil  meal, 
clover  hay  

66 

93 

2.3 

1:  8.4 

20.2 

0.28 

VII 

Shock  corn,  clover  hay 

65 

90 

1.8 

1:10.5 

15.9 

0.25 

Here  again  the  amount  of  protein  seems  to  have  been  sufficient 
to  produce  good  fattening  gains.  The  gains  made  by  Lots  II  and  III 
were  not  so  high  as  would  be  expected,  due  possibly  to  the  fact  that 
the  corn  was  ground.  The  energy  of  the  shock-corn  and  clover-hay 
ration  of  Lot  VII  was  insufficient  for  maximum  gains.  It  is  notice- 
able also  that  the  increased  amount  of  protein  received  by  Lot  VI 
produced  no  increase  in  gain. 

In  another  experiment,  Coffey42  fed  6  lots  of  16  range  lambs  each, 
from  January  12  to  April  26,  105  days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed 
but  the  digestible  nutrients  were  calculated  from  the  values  given  in 
Bulletin  84  of  the  Pennsylvania  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 
The  data  are  summarized  in  Table  45. 

The  gains  seem  to  indicate  that  the  protein  and  energy  were  suffi- 
cient for  good  results. 


1914]  AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON 

TABLE  45. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  COFFEY 


FATTENING  LAMBS 

AT  THE  ILLINOIS  STATION" 


31 


Lot 

Eation 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digesti- 
ble pro- 
tein per 
1000 

Nu- 
tritive 
ratio 

Net 
energy, 
per  1000 

Aver- 
age 
daily 

pounds 

pounds 

gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

ns. 

I 

Corn,  clover  hay  

68 

101 

1.9 

1:10.0 

19.6 

0.31 

II 

Corn,      silage      (small 

amount),  clover   hay 

68 

104 

1.8 

1:10.3 

19.2 

0.35 

III 

Corn,  silage    (medium 

amount)  ,  clover   hay 

67 

102 

1.8 

1:10.3 

19.7 

0.33 

IV 

Corn,   silage    (medium 

amount)  ,  clover  hay 

68 

105 

1.8 

1  :  10.5 

19.4 

0.36 

V 

Corn,      silage      (large 

amount),  clover  hay 

68 

106 

1.8 

1:10.4 

19.3 

0.36 

VI 

Corn,      silage      (large 

amount),  clover   hay 

68 

106 

1.7 

1:10.8 

19.1 

0.37 

Coffey,4"1  also  fed  6  lots  of  20  range  lambs  each  on  a  ration  of 
shelled  corn  and  alfalfa  hay  in  varying  proportions.  The  feeding 
periods  lasted  from  October  23  to  January  20,  91  days.  Toward  the 
end  of  the  experiment,  soy  beans  were  also  fed.  None  of  the  feeds 
was  analyzed.  In  Table  46  is  given  a  summary  of  the  data. 

TABLE  46. — •  EXPERIMENT  BY  COFFEY  AT  THE  ILLINOIS  STATION48 


Lot 

Proportion 
of  grain 
to  hay 

Initial 
weight 

Final 

weight 

Digestible 
protein 
per  1000 
pounds 

Net  energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Average 
daily 
gain 

I 
II 
III 
IV 
V 
VI 

1:0.99 
1:1.01 
1:1.36 
1:1.36 
1:2.43 
1:3.48 

Ibs. 
69 
68 
69 
'      68 
69 
69 

Ibs. 
96 
95 
90 
90 
88 
87 

76s. 
2.8 
2.8 
3.0 
2.8 
3.0 
3.0 

therms 
18.2 
18.4 
17.8 
17.6 
15.4 
14.3 

Ibs. 
0.30 
0.30 
0.27 
0.24 
0.21 
0.20 

In  this  experiment  the  protein  was  probably  sufficient  for  all  the 
lots.  The  same  cannot  be  said  of  the  energy,  which  appears  to  have 
been  somewhat  deficient  in  all  but  Lots  I  and  II. 

Immediately  following  the  foregoing  experiment,  Coffey44  again 
fed  6  lots  of  20  lambs  each  on  a  ration  of  corn  and  alfalfa  hay  in  vary- 
ing proportions.  The  feeding  period  lasted  from  February  19  to 
May  27,  98  days.  The  feeds  were  not  analyzed.  The  data  are  sum- 
marized in  Table  47. 

Again  it  seems  that  the  protein  was  probably  sufficient  for  all 
lots,  but  the  energy  appears  to  have  been  somewhat  deficient  for  Lots 
V  and  VI. 


32  BULLETIN  No.  166  [January, 

TABLE  47. —  EXPERIMENT  BY  COFFEY  AT  THE  ILLINOIS  STATION" 


Lot 

Proportion 
of  grain 
to  hay 

Initial 
weight 

Final 
weight 

Digestible 
protein 
per  1000 
pounds 

Net  energy 
per  1000 
pounds 

Average 
daily 
gain 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

Ibs. 

therms 

Ibs. 

I 

1:0.86 

05 

97 

2.8 

19.8 

0.33 

II 

1:0.85 

65 

97 

2.9 

20.3 

0.33 

III 

1:1.31 

65 

96 

3.1 

18.9 

0.32 

IV 

1:1.31 

Go 

96 

3.1 

19.2 

0.31 

V 

1:2.03 

64 

93 

3.2 

17.7 

0.29 

VI 

1:2.03 

65 

89 

3.2 

17.7 

0.25 

DISCUSSION  OF  RESULTS 

In  an  effort  to  ascertain  the  minimum  amounts  of  protein  and 
energy  conducive  to  good  fattening  gains  (0.3  pound  or  more  per 
day) ,  the  data  given  in  the  preceding  pages  have  been  tabulated  and 
divided  into  four  classes  according  to  the  average  live  weights  of  the 
lambs  during  the  experiments.  Class  I  includes  those  lambs  that 
weighed  50  to  70  pounds;  Class  II,  those  that  weighed  70  to  80 
pounds ;  Class  III,  those  that  weighed  90  to  110  pounds ;  and  Class  IV, 
those  that  weighed  110  to  150  pounds".  (See  Tables  48  to  51,  pages 
36  to  43).  In  this  compilation  no  effort  has  been  made  to  distin- 
guish between  the  breeds  of  the  lambs,  the  systems  of  feeding,  the 
climatic  conditions,  etc. 

The  results  have  been  further  subdivided  into  groups  according 
to  the  amount  of  digestible  protein  consumed  per  1000  pounds  live 
weight.  The  number  of  animals  in  each  lot,  the  average  live  weight  of 
the  lot  during  the  experiment,  the  net  energy  of  the  ration  expressed  in 
therms  per  1000  pounds  live  weight,  and  the  average  daily  gain  are 
given  for  each  lot.  In  each  case  the  average  live  weight  was  obtained 
by  taking  the  mean  of  the  average  initial  weight  and  the  average  final 
weight.  This  average  has  been  used  in  calculating  the  protein  and 
the  energy  consumption  per  1000  pounds  live  weight. 

Further,  where  there  were  two  or  more  experiments  within  a 
group  the  results  have  been  arranged  according  to  relative  energy  con- 
sumption, the  group  that  shows  the  highest  consumption  being  placed 
first.  With  this  arrangement  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  ascertain 
for  any  group  what  influence,  if  any,  the  change  in  energy  had  upon 
the  gain  in  live  weight.  The  average  daily  energy  consumption  and 
the  average  daily  gain  of  each  group  are  also  given.  These  averages 
are  arithmetic  means.  It  was  found  that  "weighting"  the  results  did 
not  materially  affect  the  averages. 

•In  live-stock  markets  animals  of  this  weight,  Class  IV,  would  be  called 
sheep,  but  here  most  of  the  animals  referred  to  were  probably  of  lamb  age,  i.  e., 
under  twelve  months. 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS  33 

These  tabulated  results*  have  been  plotted  with  respect  to  the  pro- 
tein consumed  and  the  average  daily  gains  in  weight,  and  also  in  a 
sense  with  respect  to  the  energy  consumed.  See  Figs.  1  to  4  (pages 
44,  45,  46,  and  47).  In  each  figure  the  abscissas  represent  the  aver- 
age daily  consumption  of  digestible  protein  per  1000  pounds  live 
weight ;  the  ordinates,  the  average  daily  gain ;  and  each  dot,  the  pro- 
tein consumption  and  the  average  daily  gain  of  a  lot.  The  number  at 
the  side  of  each  dot  represents  the  energy  consumption  of  the  lot  ex- 
pressed in  therms.  In  case  two  lots  coincide  in  protein  consumption 
and  in  gain,  the  energy  consumption  of  each  lot  is  given.  Each  point 
on  the  curve  represents  the  average  daily  gain  of  all  the  lots  on  the 
same  protein  plane,  and  the  number  at  each  point,  the  average  daily 
energy  consumption.  The  heavy  horizontal  line  represents  the  average 
daily  gain  of  all  the  lambs  of  the  class. 

The  Lambs  of  Class  I. — It  appears  from  Table  48  and  Fig.  1 
that  the  lambs  in  Class  I  made  in  most  cases  only  fair  gains  until  the 
protein  consumption  reached  3.1  pounds.  This  seems  to  have  been 
true  even  tho  the  energy  consumption  reached  as  high  as  22.0  therms. 
When  fed  more  than  3.3  pounds  of  digestible  protein,  the  lambs  did 
not  seem  to  make  correspondingly  better  gains  even  when  the  energy 
was  increased  considerably.  With  3.8  to  4.3  pounds  of  protein,  they 
made  just  as  good  gains  as  when  they  consumed  from  3.1  to  3.3  pounds, 
but  no  better.  However,  on  these  higher  protein  planes  they  consumed 
somewhat  more  energy.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  definite  relation 
between  the  energy  consumption  and  the  gain  in  weight  on  any  partic- 
ular protein  plane.  In  some  cases  a  high  gain  was  associated  with  a 
high  energy  value,  and  in  others  with  a  low  energy  value,  and  vice 
versa. 

In  general,  the  results  indicate  that  3.1  to  3.3  pounds  of  protein 
and  17  to  19  therms  of  energy  are  sufficient  for  lambs  of  this  weight. 

The  Lambs  of  Class  77.— The  lambs  of  "Class  II  (Table  49,  Fig.  2) 
made  an  average  daily  gain  of  0.31  pound  on  as  little  as  1.8  to  2.0 
pounds  of  digestible  protein,  with  not  less  than  18  to  20  therms  of 
energy.  Additional  amounts  of  protein  up  to  2.5  pounds  produced 
no  better  gains  even  when  accompanied  by  amounts  of  energy  as  high 
as  were  fed  the  lambs  on  the  lower  protein  plane.  In  fact,  most  of 
the  gains  were  lower.  With  the  consumption  of  2.5  to  2.8  pounds  of 
digestible  protein  and  18  to  20  therms,  or  more,  of  energy,  there  was 
a  considerable  increase  in  the  gains.  Beyond  3.1  pounds  of  protein, 
there  was  a  noticeable  increase.  This,  however,  was  associated  with 
an  increase  in  energy.  Nearly  all  cases  of  poor  gains  by  individual 
lots  were  associated  with  a  low  energy  consumption. 

"The  data  for  the  second  year  of  Linfield  's  experiment,  page  28,  have  been 
omitted,  as  the  initial  weight  was  only  38  pounds.  Also,  Lots  IX  and  X  of  Mum- 
ford's  experiment,  page  9,  have  been  omitted  because  of  lack  of  data  with  respect 
to  the  protein  and  energy. 


34  BULLETIN  No.  166  [January, 

In  general  the  results  seem  to  indicate  that  2.5  to  2.8  pounds  of 
digestible  protein  and  18  to  20  therms  of  energy  are  sufficient  for 
fattening  lambs  of  this  weight.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that 
under  proper  conditions  1.8  to  2.0  pounds  of  protein  and  18  to  20 
therms  of  energy  may  be  sufficient  to  produce  good  gains. 

In  connection  with  these  data,  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  usu- 
ally the  higher  energy  values  on  any  one  protein  plane  were  associated 
with  gains  that  were  above  the  average. 

The  Lambs  of  Class  III. — According  to  Table  50  and  Fig.  3,  the 
lots  of  Class  III  that  received  rations  containing  from  2.2  to  2.4 
pounds,  or  more,  of  digestible  protein,  and  from  17  to  23  therms,  or 
more,  of  energy  made,  as  a  rule,  satisfactory  gains.  Those  receiving 
between  2.4  and  3.6  pounds  of  protein  generally  made  no  greater 
gains  than  were  made  on  the  lower  protein  plane  even  when  the 
energy  ran  as  high  as  22  therms.  When  the  lambs  consumed  from 
3.8  to  4.0  pounds  of  protein  and  from  19  to  25  therms  of  energy,  they 
made  distinct  additional  gains.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that 
only  three  lots  received  this  amount  of  protein,  and  two  of  these 
three  lots  were  made  up  of  carefully  selected  pure-bred  lambs. 

The  results  seem  to  indicate  that  from  2.2  to  2.4  pounds  of  digesti- 
ble protein,  and  from  17  to  20  therms  of  energy  are  sufficient  for  fat- 
tening lambs  of  this  weight.  In  this  class  the  tendency  of  the  low 
energy  values  to  be  associated  with  the  low  gains  (Fig.  3)  was  more 
decided  than  that  shown  by 'any  of  the  other  classes.  The  high  energy 
values  also  tend  more  decidedly  to  follow  the  higher  gains,  altho,  as 
in  the  other  two  classes,  the  majority  of  the  highest  gains  are  not 
associated  with  the  largest  number  of  therms. 

The  Lambs  of  Class  IV. — Altho  the  data  for  Class  IV  are  quite 
few,  yet  it  is  of  interest  to  note  (Table  51,  Fig.  4)  that  when  the 
digestible  protein  consumption  ranged  from  2.6  to  3.0  pounds,  and  the 
energy  consumption  from  16  to  19  therms,  the  lambs  made  excep- 
tionally good  gains.  Also  beyond  3.0  pounds  of  protein,  they  made 
good  gains,  but  here  the  energy  consumption  was  considerably  higher, 
averaging  24  therms. 

There  are  three  lots  which  made  good  gains  on  1.4  to  1.9  pounds 
of  protein  and  8  to  11  therms  of  energy.  While  these  results  are  too 
few  from  which  to  draw  a  definite  conclusion,  yet  they  are  quite  sug- 
gestive in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Armsby  standard*  for  growing 
lambs  calls  for  practically  the  same  amount  of  digestible  protein. 
The  Kellner  standard"  for  fattening  lambs  calls  for  practically  the 
same  amount  of  digestible  protein  and  11  to  12  therms  of  energy. 
Under  ordinary  conditions  probably  16  to  19  therms  of  energy  would 
be  better. 


"This  bulletin,  page  3. 
"This  bulletin,  page  4. 


1914]  AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS  35 


CONCLUSIONS 

From  the  results  obtained  in  reviewing  these  American  experi- 
ments, which  embrace  265  lots  of  lambs,  aggregating  5127  animals,  the 
following  values  are  suggested  as  the  minimum  protein  and  energy 
requirements  per  1000  pounds  live  weight  per  day  for  fattening  lambs. 

1.  Lambs  weighing  50  to  70  pounds  (Class  I)  require  from  3.1 
to  3.3  pounds  of  digestible  protein  and  from  17  to  19  therms  of  net 
energy  to  make  satisfactory  daily  gains. 

2.  Lambs  weighing  70  to  90  pounds  (Class  II)  require  from  2.5 
to  2.8  pounds  of  digestible  protein,  and  from  18  to  20  therms  of  net 
energy.    Under  proper  conditions,  1.8  to  2.0  pounds  of  protein  and 
18  to  20  therms  of  energy  are  sufficient  for  good  gains. 

3.  Lambs  weighing  90  to  110  pounds  (Class  III)  require  2.2  to 
2.4  pounds  of  digestible  protein  and  17  to  20  therms  of  net  energy  to 
make  good  daily  gains. 

4.  In  the  case  of  lambs  weighing  110  to  150  pounds  (Class  IV), 
no  definite  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  limited  data  here  re- 
ported.   Lambs  of  this  class  made  exceptional  gains  when  the  digest- 
ible protein  ranged  from  2.6  to  3.0  pounds,  and  the  net  energy  from 
16  to  19  therms.    Taking  into  consideration  the  results  obtained  with 
1.4  to  1.9  pounds  of  protein,  however,  and  the  results  reported  by 
Kellner  and  Armsby,  it  seems  reasonable  to  state  that  probably  from 
1.4  to  1.9  pounds  of  digestible  protein  with  from  16  to  19  therms 
of  net  energy  would  be  sufficient  for  animals  of  this  weight. 


The  authors  wish  to  acknowledge  their  indebtedness  to  Dr.  H.  S. 
Grindley,  Chief  in  Animal  Nutrition,  for  the  generous  and  helpful 
suggestions  given  in  connection  with  this  study,  and  to  W.  C.  Coffey, 
Chief  in  Sheep  Husbandry,  for  the  use  of  unpublished  data. 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


TABLE  48. —  PROTEIN  AND  ENERGY  CONSUMED  AND  GAINS  IN  WEIGHT  PER  DAY 
LAMBS  OF  CLASS    I,  WEIGHING  50  TO  70  POUNDS 


Group 

Refer- 
ence 
No.» 

No.  of 
animals 
in  lot 

Average 
weight 
of  lambs 

Digestible 
protein  con- 
sumed per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
consumed 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

1 

1 

3 

Ibs. 
61 

Ibs. 
4.9 

therms 
18.1 

Ibs. 
0.18 

2 

21 
11 

5 
10 

59 
61 

4.6 
4.6 

23.4 
17.5 

0.29 
0.17 

Averagt 

$  of  Group  2 

4.6 

20.4 

0.23 

3 

21 

5 

67 

4.4 

21.6 

0.23 

4 

21 

5 

66 

4.3 

22.0 

0.31 

5 

21 

5 

67 

4.2 

20.9 

0.26 

6 

3 

86 

65 

4.1 

19.9 

0.17 

7 

37 
21 

21 

24 
5 
5 

56 
66 
62 

4.0 
4.0 
4.0 

23.6 

20.4 
18.4 

0.20 
0.20 
0.25 

Averagt 

of  Group  7. 

4.0 

20.8 

0.22 

8 

21 

8 

5 

50 

66 
62 

3.9 
3.9 

21.3 
18.9 

0.29 
0.32 

Average 

s  of  Group  8. 

3.9 

20.1 

0.30 

9 

37 
3 
2 

23 
87 
2 

57 
69 
67 

3.8 
3.8 
3.8 

22.3 
19.1 
15.9 

0.24 
0.23 
0.26 

Average 

of  Group  9. 

3.8 

19.1 

0.24 

10 

21 

5 

64 

3.7 

16.4 

0.19 

11 

37 

?4 

55 

3.6 

20.6 

0.19 

12 

37 

24 

56 

3.4 

21.3 

0.21 

13 

19 
19 

16 

20 

67 

68 

3.3 
3.3 

18.1 
17.5 

0.30 
0.34 

Average 

of  Group  13 

3.3 

17.8 

0.32 

14 

19 
37 

16 
16 

69 
63 

3.2 
3.2 

18.5 
15.0 

0.32 
0.22 

Average 

of  Group  14 

3.2 

16.7 

0.27 

15 

19 

37 

16 
17 

69 
62 

3.1 
3.1 

19.4 
15.5 

0.33 
0.21 

Average 

of  Group  15 

3.1 

17.4 

0.27 

16 

3 
37 
11 

58 
17 
40 

63 
67 
61 

2.8 
2.8 
2.8 

22.0 
15.9 
10.8 

0.14 
0.33 
0.06 

Average 

of  Group  16 

2.8 

16.2 

0.18 

17 

36 
36 
36 

24 
24 
24 

68 
69 
69 

2.7 
2.7 
2.7 

16.9 
16.7 
16.3 

0.23 
0.22 
0.26 

Average 

of  Group  17 

2.7 

16.6 

0.24 

18 

3 
36 
35 
37 

58 
24 
22 
17 

67 
69 
65 
62 

2.6 
2.6 
2.6 
2.6 

21.0 
16.0 
15.9 
11.8 

0.21 
0.23 
0.29 
0.13 

Average 

of  Group  18 

2.6 

16.2 

0.21 

cSee  bibliography  on  page  48. 


Wld] 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


37 


TABLE  48. —  Concluded 


Group 

Befer- 
ence 
No.a 

No.  of 
animals 
in  lot 

Average 
weight 
of  lambs 

Digestible 
protein  con- 
sumed per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
consumed 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

19 

2 

2 

Ibs. 
69 

Ibs. 
2.5 

therms 
16.7 

Ibs. 
0.19 

20 

19 
37 

8 
17 

61 
69 

2.3 
2.3 

17.8 
12.4 

0.24 
0.21 

Averag( 

j  of  Group  2( 

I  

2.3 

15.1 

0.22 

21 

1 

3 

54 

2.2 

17.8 

0.10 

22 

11 
11 

10 

40 

61 

63 

2.0 
2.0 

19.0 
17.2 

0.14 
0.21 

Average 

$  of  Group  21 

> 

20 

18.1 

0.17 

23 

8 
19 

50 

8 

60 

60 

1.9 
1.9 

17.2 
16.3 

0.25 
0.19 

Averag< 

j  of  Group  2; 

!  

1.9 

16.7 

0.22 

24 

11 
11 
19 

10 
10 
8 

65 
65 
61 

1.8 
1.8 

1.8 

18.8 
18.4 
16.7 

0.23 
0.23 
0.19 

Averag< 

3  of  Group  2^ 

t  

1.8 

18.0 

0.22 

25 

19 

8 

62 

1.7 

17.0 

0.20 

26 

2 

2 

59 

1.6 

16.7 

0.16 

27 

32 

15 

68 

1.5 

19.8 

0.26 

28 

32 

15 

68 

1.4 

17.9 

0.22 

Averag 

e  of  All  (49 

)  Lots  

3.0 

18.1 

0.23 

"See  bibliography  on  page  48. 


38 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


TABLE  49. —  PROTEIN  AND  ENERGY  CONSUMED  AND  GAINS  IN  WEIGHT  PER  DAY 
LAMBS  OP  CLASS  II,  WEIGHING  70  TO  90  POUNDS 


Group 

Eefer- 
ence 
No." 

No.  of 
animals 
in  lot 

Average 
weight 
of  lambs 

Digestible 
protein  con- 
sumed per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
consumed 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

1 

22 

200 

Ibs. 
76 

Ibs. 
4.6 

therms 
23.7 

Its. 
0.34 

2 

11 
10 

10 

100 

70 
74 

4.5 
4.5 

22.0 
21.1 

0.31 
0.31 

Average  of  Group  2  

4.5 

21.5 

0.31 

3 

22 
11 
11 

200 
40 

40 

77 
71 
70 

4.3 
4.3 
4.3 

22.4 
21.9 
21.2 

0.39 
0.35 
0.35 

Average  of  Group  3  

4.3 

21.8 

0.36 

4 

16 

10 

83 

4.2 

26.0 

0.35 

5 

12 
12 

35 
35 

71 

75 

4.1 
4.1 

21.8 
21.4 

0.23 
0.33 

Average  of  Group  5 

4.1 

21.6 

0.28 

6 

20 
12 

14 
35 

73 
73 

4.0 
4.0 

22.5 
22.1 

0.35 
0.30 

Average  of  Group  6  

4.0 

22.3 

0.32 

7 

20 
22 

14 
200 

73 

78 

3.9 
3.9 

22.9 
21.2 

0.33 
0.35 

Average  of  Group  7  

3.9 

22.0 

0.34 

8 

20 
10 

14 
5 

74 
77 

3.8 
3.8 

23.6 
20.4 

0.37 
0.29 

Average  of  Group  8  

3.8 

22.0 

0.33 

9 

20 
20 
13 
9 
9 

12 
12 
41 
20 
3 

77 
79 
76 
78 
78 

3.7 
3.7 
3.7 
3.7 
3.7 

22.0 
21.1 
20.7 
17.0 
12.6 

0.35 
0.35 
0.29 
0.31 
0.26 

Average  of  Group  9  

3.7 

18.7 

0.31 

10 

20 
9 

12 
20 

77 
78 

3.6 
3.6 

23.0 
16.9 

0.32 
0.33 

Average  of  Group  10  

3.6 

19.9 

0.32 

11 

18 
32 
21 
9 

10 
15 
4 
3 

81 
78 
89 
79 

3.5 
3.5 
3.5 
3.5 

26.0 
20.3 
18.7 
17.0 

0.30 
0.39 
0.36 
0.32 

Average  of  Group  11  .  .  .  .  '.  

3.5 

20.5    • 

0.34 

12 
~13~~ 

40 

10 

85 

3.4 

25.4 

0.47 

18 
40 
40 
18 
33 
32 

10 
10 
10 
10 

200 
14 

85 
84 
82 
80 
80 
80 

3.3 
3.3 
3.3 
3.3 
3.3 
3.3 

25.9 
24.9 
24.9 
24.7 
22.3 
19.8 

0.41 
0.42 
0.40 
0.30 
0.32 
0.34 

Average  of  Group  13  

3.3 

23.7 

0.36 

•See  bibliography  on  page  48. 


1914} 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


39 


TABLE  49. —  Continued 


Group 

Eefer- 
ence 
No." 

.    No.  of 
animals 
in  lot 

Average 
weight 
of  lambs 

Digestible 
protein  con- 
sumed per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
consumed 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

14 

40 
40 
40 
31 
13 
44 
44 

10 
10 
10 
40 
41 
20 
20 

Ibs. 
80 
81 

80 
82 
77 
79 

77 

Ibs. 
3.2 
3.2 
3.2 
3.2 
3.2 
3.2 
3.2 

therms 
23.7 
22.8 
22.5 
19.3 
18.8 
17.7 
17.7 

Ibs. 
0.36 
0.39 
0.37 
0.31 
0.28 
0.29 
0.25 

Average  of  Group  1' 

1  

3.2 

20.4 

0.32 

15 

18 
39 
31 
44 
44 

10 
10 
40 
20 
20 

83 

77 
81 
80 

80 

3.1 
3.1 
3.1 
3.1 
3.1 

23.3 
22.2 
19.4 
19.2 
18.9 

0.33 
0.30 
0.30 
0.31 
0.32 

Average  of  Group  11 

3.1 

20.6 

0.31 

16 

15 
43 
43 
43 

10 
20 
20 

20 

87 
79 

78 
78 

3.0 
3.0 
3.0 

3.0 

18.8 
17.8 
15.4 
14.3 

0.37 
0.27 
0.21 
0.20 

Average  of  Group  1( 

5  

3.0 

16.6 

0.26 

17 

44 
13 

20 
41 

81 

80 

2.9 
2.9 

20.3 
18.2 

0.33 
0.35 

Average  of  Group  1' 

r  

2.9 

19.2 

0.34 

18 

32 
44 
43 
43 
35 
43 
35 
21 

15 

20 
20 
20 
22 
20 
22 
5 

77 
81 
81 
82 
80 
79 
81 
70 

2.8 
2.8 
2.8 
2.8 
2.8 

20 
.0 

2.8 
2.8 

20.4 
19.8 
18.4 
18.2 
17.6 
17.6 
15.8 
15.0 

0.34 
0.33 
0.30 
0.30 
0.29 
0.24 
0.22 
0.28 

Average  of  Group  U 

!  

2.8 

17.8 

0.29 

19 

36 

24 

70 

2.7 

15.1 

0.25 

20 

32 
32 
32 
2 
35 
35 

14 
15 
14 
2 

22 

22 

79 

77 
78 
70 
83 
85 

2.6 
2.6 
2.6 
2.6 
2.6 
2.6 

20.2 
20.1 
20.0 
17.1 
16.6 
16.3 

0.34 
0.37 
0.29 
0.25 
0.27 
0.26 

Average  of  Group  2( 

)  

2.6 

18.4 

0.30 

21 

31 
32 
31 

40 
25 
40 

82 

85 
82 

2.5 
2.5 

2.5 

19.5 
19.4 
19.3 

0.31 
0.33 
0.30 

Average  of  Group  2] 

2.5 

19.4 

0.31 



22 

10 

10 
4 

5 
5 

20 

72 
72 
87 

2.4 
2.4 
2.4 

16.8 
16.1 
15.5 

0.18 
0.18 
0.24 

Average  of  Group  22  

2.4 

16.1 

0.20 

23 

41 
32 

16 
14 

79 
74 

2.3 
2.3 

20.2 
20.1 

0.28 
0.26 

"See  bibliography  on  page  48. 


40 


BULLETIN  No.  1C6 


[January, 


TABLE  49. —  Concluded 


Group 

Eefer- 
ence 
No> 

No.  of 
animals 
in  lot 

Average 
weight 
of  lambs 

Digestible 
protein  con- 
sumed per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
consumed 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

23 
cont  'd 

32 
32 

25 
15      - 

11)3. 

83 
73 

Ibs. 
2.3 
2.3 

therms 
19.9 
19.8 

Ibs. 
0.28 
0.31 

Average 

5  of  Group  2J 

1  

2.3 

20.0 

0.28 

24 

32 
10 
4 

15 
5 
20 

72 
72 
88 

2.2 
2.2 
2.2 

18.1 
17.3 
15.8 

0.25 
0.17 
0.24 

Average 

5  of  Group  24 

t  

2.2 

17.1 

0.22 

25 

32 
32 
14 

25 
14 
32 

82 
74 
89 

2.1 
2.1 
2.1 

18.6 
18.5 
16.0 

0.26 
0.24 
0.27 

Average 

3  of  Group  21 

2.1 

17.7 

0.26 

26 

32 
41 

15 
16 

75 
78 

2.0 
2.0 

20.5 
20.4 

0.33 
0.26 

Average 

j  of  Group  2( 

i  

2.0 

20.4 

0.29 

27 

41 
41 
41 
42 
32 

16 
16 
16 
16 
25 

80 
79 
80 
84 
86 

1.9 
1.9 
1.9 
1.9 
1.9 

22.7 
19.8 
19.7 
19.6 
19.5 

0.29 
0.30 
0.29 
0.31 
0.36 

Average 

j  of  Group  27 

1.9 

20.3 

0.31 

28 

7 
32 
42 
42 
42 
42 
7 
7 
13 
41       . 
10 
10 

10 
14 
16 
16 
16 
16 
10 
10 
41 
16 
5 
5 

86 
79 
87 
86 
87 
86 
89 
89 
75 
77 
71 
71 

1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 
1.8 

20.2 
19.9 
19.7 
19.4 
19.3 
19.2 
19.1 
18.7 
18.0 
15.9 
15.6 
15.1 

0.26 
0.32 
0.33 
0.36 
0.36 
0.35 
0.34 
0.32 
0.25 
0.25 
0.16 
0.15 

Average 

of  Group  28 

1.8 

18.3 

0.29 

29 

41 
42 
9 
6 

16 
16 
20 
10 

79 

87 
73 
89 

1.7 

1.7 
1.7 
1.7 

19.5 
19.1 
15.6 
11.9 

0.27 
0.37 
0.21 
0.13 

Average 

of  Group  29 

1.7 

16.5 

0.24 

30 

14 

32 

88 

1.6 

14.6 

0.23 

31 

32 
7 
10 
14 
1* 

13 

10 
5 
32 
32 

72 
88 
70 
85 
85 

1.5 
1.5 
1.5    ' 
1.5 
1.5 

20.5 
18.3 
15.7 
15.6 
15.5 

0.23 
0.29 
0.13 
0.19 
0.17 

Average 

of  Group  31 

1.5 

17.1 

0.20 

32 

14 

32 

89 

1.4 

15.6 

0.25 

33 

32 

13 

72 

1.3 

19.2 

0.18 

Average  c 

f  All  (115 

)  Lots  

2.7 

19.4 

0.30 

•See  bibliography  on  page  48. 


1914] 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


41 


TABLE  50. —  PROTEIN  AND  ENERGY  CONSUMED  AND  GAINS  IN  WEIGHT  PER  DAY 
LAMBS  OP  CLASS  Jil,  WEIGHING  90  TO  110  POUNDS 


Group 

Eefer- 
enee 
No." 

No.  of 
animals 
in  lot 

Average 
weight 
of  lambs 

Digestible 
protein  con- 
sumed per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
consumed 
per  1000 
pounds 

Avei- 
age 
daily 
gain 

1 

22 

125 

Ibs. 

107 

Ibs. 
5.7 

therms 
27.4 

Ibs. 
0.31 

2 

18 

18 

7 
7 

103 
103 

4.6 
4.6 

22.9 
21.6 

0.45 
0.44 

Average  of  Group  2 

4.6 

22.2 

0.44 

3 

18 

7 

100 

4.4 

20.0 

0.37 

4 

18 
38 

7 
11 

102 
92 

4.3 

4.3 

22.0 
15.0 

0.42 
0.22 

Average  of  Group  4 

4.3 

18.7 

0.32 

5 

16 

8 

93 

4.1 

25.1 

0.37 

6 

16 

9 

105 

4.0 

25.1 

0.43 

7 

25 

10 

103 

3.9 

19.0 

0.51 

8 

16 

9 

109 

3.8 

23.7 

0.44 

0 

16 

9 

107 

3.6 

22.3 

0.36 

10 

33 

10 

99 

3.3 

18.6 

0.39 

11 

22 
21 
38 

125 
4 
11 

106 
99 
101 

3.2 
3.2 
3.2 

19.6 
18.7 
14.8 

0.29 
0.39 
0.35 

Average  of  Group  i; 

[  

3.2 

17.7 

0.34 

12 

39 
15 
26 

10 
10 
10 

92 
99 
101 

3.1 
3.1 
3.1 

21.9 
19.5 
18.5 

0.28 
0.41 
0.34 

Averagi 

"  15 

4 

}  of  Group  12  

3.1 

20.0 

0.34 

13 

10 
5 

95 
97 

3.0 
3.0 

19.1 
14.8 

0.29 
0.31 

Average  of  Group  13  

3.0 

16.9 

0.30 

14 

21 
4 

4 
10 

96 
94 

2.9 
2.9 

16.2 
13.7 

0.32 
0.20 

Average  of  Group  14  

2.9 

14.9 

0.26 

15 

39 
2(5 
5 
21 

10 
10 
10 
4 

109 

97 
100 
98 

2.8 
2.8 
2.8 
2.8 

20.1 
18.2 
17.7 
17.5 

0.28 
0.28 
0.34 
0.36 

Average  of  Group  15  

2.8 

18.4 

0.31 

16 

33 
5 
5 

10 
10 
15 

101 
103 
94 

2.7 
2.7 
2.7 

22.7 
18.4 
16.4 

0.45 
0.37 
0.28 

Average  of  Group  16  

2.7 

19.2 

0.37 

17 

24 
4 
5 
4 
4 

9 
15 

20 
10 
15 

96 
102 
92 
104 
102 

2.6 
2.6 
2.6 
2.6 
2.6 

21.3 
16.3 
16.3 
16.2 
14.8 

0.34 
0.33 
0.23 
0.30 
0.30 

Average  of  Group  17  

2.6 

17.0 

0.30 

"See  bibliography  on  page  48. 


42 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


TABLE  50. —  Concluded 


Group 

Eefer- 
ence 
No." 

No.  of 
animals 
in  lot 

Average 
weigLt 
of  lambs 

Digestible 
protein  con- 
sumed per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
consumed 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

18 

26 
5 

10 
15 

Ibs. 
102 
93 

Ibs. 
2.5 
2.5 

therms 
19.2 
15.8 

Ibs. 
0.36 
0.25 

Average  of  Group  18  

2.5 

17.5 

0.30 

19 

4 
4 

10 
10 

106 

102 

2.4 
2.4 

17.2 
16.1 

0.37 
0.31 

Average  of  Group  19  

2.4 

16.6 

0.34 

20 

26 

18 
24 
6 
6 

10 
9 
9 
10 
10 

99 
102 
96 
92 
95 

2.3 
2.3 
2.3 
2.3 
2.3 

20.6 
20.1 
20.0 
18.3 
15.5 

0.37 
0.37 
0.34 
0.18 
0.23 

Average  of  Group  20  

2.3 

18.9 

0.30 

21 

24 
18 
7 
4 

9 
9 
10 
10 

94 
106 
91 

105 

2.2 
2.2 
2.2 
2.2 

22.9 
21.2 
19.3 
17.7 

0.35 
0.39 
0.35 
0.37 

Average  of  Group  21  

2.2 

20.3 

0.36 

22 

24 
18 
18 
24 
5 
6 
5 
6 
29 
29 

9 

9 
9 
9 
10 
10 
15 
10 
10 
10 

94 
102 
101 
96 
101 
92 
96 
95 
104 
104 

2.1 
2.1 
2.1 
2.1 
2.1 
2.1 
2.1 
2.1 
2.1 
2.1 

22.1 
20.3 
19.8 
18.6 
18.4 
17.4 
16.3 
16.1 
14.0 
12.6 

0.31 
0.29 
0.30 
0.31 
0.38 
0.26 
0.28 
0.24 
0.24 
0.24 

Average  of  Group  22  

2.1 

17.6 

0.28 

23 

24 
24 
7 
23 
25 
23 
5 
5 

9 
9 
10 
12 
10 
12 
10 
20 

94 
97 
91 
96 
99 
103 
98 
94 

2.0 
2.0 
2.0 
2.0 
2.0 
2.0 
2.0 
2.0 

20.5 
19.4 
19.0 
18.2 
17.9 
17.5 
17.0 
16.6 

0.37 
0.37 
0.33 
0.24 
0.38 
0.36 
0.31 
0.24 

Average  of  Group  23  

2.0 

18.3 

0.32 

24 

7 
6 
6 

10 
10 
10 

91 
95 
96 

1.9 
1.9 
1.9 

19.5 
15.9 
15.8 

0.34 
0.22 
0.25 

Average  of  Group  24  

1.9 

17.1 

0.27 

25 

24 
6 

9 
10 

96 
96 

1.8 

1.8 

19.6 
16.5 

0.35 
0.26 

Average  of  Group  25  

1.8 

18.0 

0.30 

26 

24 
7 
27 

9 
10 
10 

97 
90 
109 

1.5 

1.5 
1.5 

20.0 
18.7 
12.6 

0.35 
0.31 
0.16 

Average  of  Group  26  

1.5 

17.1 

0.27 

Average  of  All  (73)  Lots  

2.7 

18.6 

0.32 

"See  bibliography  on  page  48. 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


43 


TABLE  51. —  PROTEIN  AND  ENERGY  CONSUMED  AND  GAIN  IN  WEIGHT  PER  DAY 
LAMBS  OF  CLASS  IV,  WEIGHING  110  TO  150  POUNDS 


Group 

Befer- 

ence 
No.« 

No.  of 
animals 
in  lot 

Average 
weight 
of  lambs 

Digestible 
proteincon- 
sumed  per 
1000  pounds 

Net  energy 
consumed 
per  1000 
pounds 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

1 

17 

10 

Ibs. 
121 

Ibs. 
8.1 

therms 
25.2 

Ibs. 
0.41 

2 

17 

10 

122 

4.6 

27.7 

0.45 

3 

17 
17 
16 

10 
10 
9 

121 

124 
111 

3.8      * 
3.8 
3.8 

28.6 
28.0 
23.7 

0.45 
0.46 
0.50 

Average- 

of  Group  3. 

3.8 

26  8 

0  47 

4 

16 
16 

9 
9 

113 

116 

3.7 
3.7 

23.0 
22.6 

0.40 
0.40 

Average 

of  Group  4. 

3.7 

22  8 

0  40 

5 

16 

9 

110 

3.6 

22.3 

0.46 

6 

15 

10 

123 

3.2 

20.1 

0.48 

7 

15 

10 

111 

3.1 

19.3 

0.45 

8 

15 

10 

141 

3.0 

19.0 

0.55 

9 

15 
15 
15 
15 

10 
10 
10 
10 

122 
142 
146 
146 

2.9 
2.9 
2.9 
2.9 

18.5 
18.5 
18.1 
18.1 

0.48 
0.52 
0.55 
0.62 

Average 

!  of  Group  9 

2.9 

18.3 

0.54 

10 

34 
27 

10 
10 

113 
111 

2.7 

2.7 

17.1 
12.7 

0.37 
0.22 

Averag 

re  of  Group  1 

0  

2.7 

14.9 

0  29 

11 

15 

9 

155 

2.6 

16.4 

0.52 

12 

28 

9 

119 

2.0 

11.0 

0.16 

13 

30 

5 

119 

1.9 

11.4 

0.29 

14 

30 

5 

124 

1.7 

9.9 

0.38 

15 

30 

5 

119 

1.4 

8.1 

0.35 

16 

28 

9 

116 

1.1 

•    10.8 

0.09 

17 

30 

5 

111 

0.9 

8.6 

0.23 

Averaee 

jf  All  (24 

)  Lots  .  . 

3.0 

18.3 

0.41 

"See  bibliography  on  page  48. 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


1 

14  1*  la  £0  22  £.*  £.6  28  JO  5.i  3.4  36  S&  4.0  4i  44  **  *8  &0 

POUNDS  PROTEIN  PER  DAY  PER  looo  FOUNDS-  LIVE  WEIGHT 

FIG.  1.  —  PROTEIN  AND  ENERGY  CONSUMED  AND  GAINS  IN  WEIGHT  PER  DAY 
LAMBS  OP  CLASS  I,  WEIGHING  50  TO  70  POUNDS 

2 

/ 

7 

„ 

^ 

/I 

,_ 

«l 

* 

r*n 

(^ 

-- 

-- 

X 

--- 

"1- 

^~~~ 

- 

„ 

V 

^ 

X1 

„ 

Si3 

£ 

K-" 

T 

• 

k 

^ 

^  , 

„ 

^ 

X, 

- 

7 

=s 

1 

fc 

J 

-f 

K-- 

i  ' 

-r 

J 

A 

^ 

« 

fc 

—i 

\ 

s\ 

f 

\ 

^ 

y 

_ 

^ 

s 

^ 

„ 

a 

s. 

_ 

a, 

- 

\ 

^_ 

/ 

s'ay! 

~ 

L~J 

—— 

"*^, 

•»«, 

1  —  , 

/ 

^ 

•> 

/ 

<! 

g 

, 

5 

3j 

X* 

• 

I 

= 

> 

V 

\ 

*. 

"V 

J^ 

^-- 

-  —  ' 

X 

^ 

g     AVO  U3d  SNIV9 


1914] 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


45 


iS          Sit          3          ^          gAVO   M3d    9NIVQ 


1  s 

W    £ 

^    § 


Q      - 

5     O 
<!    ^ 

II 


<!    w 


U3J  SNIV3 


46 


BULLETIN  No.  166 


[January, 


53          S{ 


\ 


••I 


\ 


AVQ  W3d   9NIVO 


W    w 

O    Q 

II 


a         S         2         S  AVD  «3d  8NIVO 


1914} 


AMERICAN  INVESTIGATIONS  ON  FATTENING  LAMBS 


47 


B X 


\ 


Q    K 
3    » 

e 


l> 


PH 


B      a      a 


»  XVd  «3d  5NW9 


48 


BULLETIN  No.  160  [January, 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

PAGE 

1.  Koberts,  I.  P.,  and  Wing,  II.  H.    New  York  (Cornell)   Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 

Bui  2.  (1888) 5-6 

2.  Koberts,  I.  P.,  and  Wing,  H.  H.    New  York  (Cornell)  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 

Bui.  8  (1889) G 

3.  Wing,  H.  H.   New  York  (Cornell)  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  305  (1911) 6-7 

4.  Mumford,  F.  B.    Michigan  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  107  (1894) 7-8 

5.  Smith,  C.  D.  and  Mumford,  F.  B.    Michigan  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  113 

(1894)    8 

6.  Mumford,  F.  B.    Michigan  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  128  (1895) 8-9 

7.  Mumford,  H.  W.   Michigan  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  136  (1896) 9-10 

8.  Foster,  L.    Wyoming  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  47  (1901) 10 

9.  Morton,  G.  E.    Wyoming  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  68  (1905) 10-11 

10.  Morton,  G.  E.    Wyoming  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  73  (1907) 11 

11.  Morton,  G.  E.    Wyoming  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  79  (1908) 11-12 

12.  Faville,  A.  D.    Wyoming  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  81  (1909) 12 

13.  Faville,  A.  D.    Wyoming  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  85  (1910) 13 

14.  Faville,  A.  D.    Wyoming  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  89  (1911) 13-14 

15.  Wilson,  J.  W.,  and  Curtiss,  C.  F.   Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  S3  (1896) .  .        14 

16.  Curtiss,  C.  F.,  and  Wilson,  J.  W.  Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  35  (1897)  . .  14-15 

17.  Kennedy,  W.  J.,  and  Marshall,  F.  E.    Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.   63 

(1902)    15-16 

18.  Kennedy,  W.  J.,  Eobbins,  E.  T.,  and  Kildee,  H.  H.    Iowa  Agr.  Exp. 

Sta.  Bui.  110  (1910) 16-17 

19.  Burnett,  E.  A.   Nebraska  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  66  (1900) 17-18 

20.  Burnett,  E.  A.    Nebraska  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  71  (1901) 18 

21.  Buffum,  B.  C.,  and  Griffith,  C.  J.    Colorado  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.   75 

(1902) 18-19 

22.  Carlyle,  W.  L.,  and  Morton,  G.  E.    Colorado  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  151 

(1910) 19-20 

23.  Chilcott,  E.  C.    South  Dakota  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  71   (1901) 20 

24.  Wilson,  J.  W.,  and  Skinner,  H.  G.    South  Dakota  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 

80  (1903)    20-21 

25.  Wilson,  J.  W.  South  Dakota  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  119  (1910) 21 

26.  McDonald,  M.,  and  Malone,  E.  E.    Oklahoma  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  78 

(1908)    22 

27.  Eichards,  W.  B.,  and  Kleinheinz,  F.    Wisconsin  Agr.  Exp.   Sta.  21st 

Annual  Eeport  (1904)   22 

28.  Humphrey,  G.  C.,  and  Kleinheinz,  F.    Wisconsin  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  22nd 

Annual  Eeport  (1905) 23 

29.  Humphrey,  G.  C.,  and  Kleinheinz,  F.    Wisconsin  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  23rd 

Annual  Eeport  (1906) 23 

30.  ArKell,  T.  E.   New  Hampshire  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  152  (1911) 23-24 

31.  Carmichael,  B.  E.    Ohio  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  179  (1906) 24 

32.  Carmichael,  B.  E.,  and  Hammond,  J.  W.    Ohio  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 

245  (1912)    24-26 

33.  Lyman,  C.  E.,  and  Phelps,  C.  S.    Connecticut  (Storrs)  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 

llth  Annual  Eeport  (1898) 26 

34.  Shaw,  T.    Minnesota  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  59  (1898) 26 

35.  Linfield,  F.  B.    Montana  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  47  (1903) 27 

36.  Linfield,  F.  B.    Montana  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  59  (1905) 27 

37.  Linfield,  F.  B.    Utah  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  78  (1902) 27-28 

38.  Clark,  E.  W.    Utah  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  101  (1906) 28-29 

39.  Coffey,  W.  C.   Illinois  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bachelor's  Thesis  (1906) 29 

40.  Craig,  S.  J.,  and  Melvin,  L.  E.  Illinois  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bachelor's  Thesis 

(1906)    29 

41.  Hammond,  J.  W.    Illinois  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Master's  Thesis  (1908) 29-30 

42.  Coffey,  W.  C.   Illinois  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Master's  Thesis  (1909) 30-31 

43.  Coffey,  W.  C.   Illinois  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.    Unpublished  manuscript1  (1906)  ..       31 

44.  Coffey,  W.  C.  Illinois  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.   Unpublished  manuscript1  (1907)  .  .31-32 

"Will  be  published  as  part  of  Bulletin  167  of  the  Illinois  Agricultural  Ex- 
periment Station. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 

Q  630.7IL6B  C001 

BULLETIN.  URBANA 
166-181  1914-15 


30112019528436 


;*  ir 


